search_english_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the target source (elaw) and suggests read-only behavior by describing it as a search tool, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, rate limits, or auth requirements. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about side effects.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some internal codes (W2.7, v2) may be cryptic, but overall information density is high without unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers usage context and next steps. It does not describe output format, but for a search tool that returns a list, this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining query matching behavior (accepts English and Korean names with examples). This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 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 specifies the tool's purpose: searching English versions of Korean statutes (영문 법령 검색) with targets like PIPA. It distinguishes itself by mentioning specific use cases (GDPR comparison, overseas reports) and directing to subsequent tools (get_english_law_text, compare_articles), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_law (Korean text) or compare_articles (comparison).

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 context for when to use the tool (searching English law translations for tasks like PIPA research or GDPR comparison) and mentions alternative workflows (use get_english_law_text for full text, compare_articles for PIPA↔GDPR comparison). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is strong.

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