search_public_institution_rules

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (despite an apiKey parameter), rate limits, or whether results are paginated. The description only states the purpose, adding no behavioral context beyond what the schema already implies.

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 (one short sentence) with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as sections or bullet points, making it minimal but efficient.

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 an output schema and the presence of 5 parameters, the description could provide more context about the return format or behavior. However, the schema covers parameter details, and the purpose is clear. The description is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions; it does not clarify parameter usage or provide examples. With high coverage, baseline is 3.

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 public institution rules, distinguishing it from siblings that search other types of regulations (e.g., search_public_corp_rules, search_school_rules). The prefix '[공공기관]' and the specific verb '검색' (search) with resource '공공기관 규정' (public institution rules) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 alternatives. It lacks explicit instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a tool with many siblings related to regulation searches, usage guidelines are missing.

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