search_alio_regulation_text

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It discloses that it performs full-text search and returns snippets, implying read-only behavior. However, lacks details on case sensitivity, language processing, or performance implications.

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?

Two concise sentences covering action, resource, filtering, and return format. No redundant words; effectively front-loaded with the main 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, description could be more complete. It omits details about snippet structure, empty result behavior, and whether search is limited to certain regulation types. Acceptable but leaves moderate gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that 'institutions' parameter enables filtering by institution and that 'maxPerRegulation' and 'maxResults' control snippet/output count, going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb '전문검색' (full-text search) and resource '전체 수집된 규정 본문' (all collected regulation text), with optional institution filtering and return of hit lines/snippets. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying regulation text and return format.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other search siblings like search_law or search_admin_rule. The name implies regulation text, but without contrast, the agent must infer use cases.

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