search_ai_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is semantic (AI-based) and works with natural language, but does not mention authentication requirements (apiKey parameter), rate limits, or potential accuracy trade-offs beyond the contrast with search_law. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and includes a useful sibling comparison. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and usage guidelines well, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it does not mention pagination or filtering options (though schema covers those). Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), a bit more context about result behavior or limits would be beneficial, but it's still reasonably complete.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces that the query is natural language but does not elaborate on other parameters like search, display, page, lawTypes, or apiKey.

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 clearly states that the tool performs semantic search for legal articles using natural language, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_law by noting when each is appropriate. The verb '검색' (search) and resource '조문' (articles) are specific.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: use this tool when you don't know the law name, and use search_law if you do know the law name for greater accuracy. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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