search_precedents

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'searches' without mentioning side effects, authentication needs (though apiKey parameter hints at it), data limits, or what the response contains. Minimal transparency for a search tool.

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 a single concise sentence with a bracketed label. It is front-loaded and efficient, though arguably too brief given the tool's complexity. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides almost no context about how results are returned, pagination behavior, sorting, or authentication. The schema descriptions help individually, but the description fails to give an overview or usage scenario.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which already describes each parameter thoroughly. No value added but no degradation.

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 Supreme Court precedents ('대법원 판례 검색'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_all' or 'search_law' that may also cover precedents. The Korean label '[판례]' is redundant but not misleading.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other search tools (e.g., search_law, search_interpretations). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks any usage context.

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