suggest_law_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior (auto-complete suggestion), but lacks details on ordering, number of results, or potential side effects. Acceptable for a simple suggestion 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?

Two short sentences: first describes functionality, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

For a simple suggestion tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It lacks details on behavior limits or expected output format, but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Both parameters (partial, apiKey) have descriptions in the schema; the description adds the example '관세, 환경' and explains the apiKey as '법제처 Open API 인증키'. This adds meaning beyond schema, especially for apiKey.

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 it suggests candidate law names when a partial name is input, with a clear auto-complete function. It distinguishes from other search tools by focusing on partial input.

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 says 'Use when you don't know the exact law name,' providing explicit usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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