search_constitutional_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the target (detc) and metadata nature of results, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, or error handling. The description gives a general sense but lacks depth.

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 two sentences plus a referral, all front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is highly 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?

While the description states results are metadata about decisions (위헌·합헌·각하 등), it does not specify the exact fields or structure returned. With no output schema, more detail on return format would improve completeness. Pagination info is covered by schema but not description.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining the query parameter with example keywords ('개인정보 자기결정권', '주민등록번호') and hinting at matching logic (사건명·사건번호 매칭). This enriches the schema's basic descriptions.

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 constitutional court decisions (헌법재판소 결정례) with specific types (위헌·합헌·각하) and provides an example case (99헌마513). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_constitutional_decision_text by directing users to retrieve full text after searching.

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 suggests using get_constitutional_decision_text for full text after searching, providing a clear workflow. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over other search tools (e.g., search_law, search_interpretations) or state exclusions, which slightly limits guidance.

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