search_interpretations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements (apiKey parameter), or rate limits. The agent has no insight into side effects or safety beyond the tool name.

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), but it lacks structural front-loading of key information. While it is short, it does not earn its place by providing essential context; it merely restates the tool name.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return format, pagination behavior, or search scope. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's full behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter, which is acceptable but does not improve upon the schema.

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 states 'Search legal interpretations' which identifies the resource and action, but it is vague and does not distinguish from sibling search tools like search_precedents or search_law. The Korean label '[해석례]' adds no clarity for an English-oriented agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_precedents or search_admin_appeals. The description provides no context about prerequisites or when it is appropriate to invoke this search.

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