search_appeal_review_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, sorted, or what the response format is. There is no mention of rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description only states the search action, omitting essential behavioral context.

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 very concise (one sentence in Korean), which is good for brevity, but it omits critical information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but lacks structure (e.g., sections, bullet points). While concise, it sacrifices completeness, scoring average.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to interpret results, handle pagination, or which parameters are most important. The description provides only a high-level purpose, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema metadata.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain that 'query' should include disciplinary terms or how 'sort' options affect results. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but the description fails to enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool searches for appeal review committee decisions (재결례) specifically related to public official disciplinary actions (징계). It uses specific verbs ('검색') and resources ('소청심사위원회 재결례'), and the domain is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_acr_decisions, which may also cover appeal decisions, though the scope is narrower.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (e.g., search_acr_decisions, search_admin_appeals). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. This is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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