search_admin_rule

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 describes the action (search metadata) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The description is adequate for a read-only search operation.

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 concise: two sentences plus a usage pointer. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently includes key context and next steps without waste.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and typical use cases, and it points to subsequent tools. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not detail the metadata fields returned, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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%, and the description adds the same context as the schema (e.g., PIPC and ministry instructions). It does not provide additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so no extra value is added.

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 administrative rules (행정규칙 검색), specifies the target (lawSearch, target=admrul), and lists types (고시·훈령·예규). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that this tool retrieves metadata, while get_admin_rule_text and compare_admin_rule_old_new handle text and comparisons.

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 explicitly directs the agent to next tools (get_admin_rule_text and compare_admin_rule_old_new) after using this one, providing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many sibling search tools.

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