search_admin_appeals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavioral traits are entirely undisclosed. The description does not indicate that it is a read-only search, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (a single phrase), which is appropriate for a simple search. However, the lack of structure or additional information means it barely earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of precedent details). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. The parameter details are in the schema, but the overall completeness is lacking for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '행정심판례 검색' clearly states it searches administrative appeal precedents, which distinguishes it from general precedent search tools like 'search_precedents' and other specialized searches. However, the prefix '[행심]' assumes Korean context and could be clearer for international agents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (e.g., 'search_acr_decisions', 'search_precedents'). The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to rely solely on the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.