search_ordinance

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

The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (apiKey parameter), rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but fails to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 at one sentence, with no redundant information. However, its brevity sacrifices useful details that could improve the agent's understanding. It is well-front-loaded with the category and search type.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain what results the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching ordinances with metadata). It does not specify the return format, pagination, or how results are ordered. For a search tool, this is incomplete.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the recommendation to include region name ('지역명 포함 권장'), which offers slight additional guidance on using the query parameter effectively, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool searches for ordinances and rules (조례/규칙), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that search other legal documents like laws, precedents, or treaties. The verb 'search' and resource type are explicit, but the description could be more specific about what aspects of ordinances are searched (e.g., name, text).

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as using search_law or search_alio_regulation_text for other types of legal documents. The recommendation to include region name is helpful but insufficient for an agent deciding between many search tools.

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