search_interpretations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. It clarifies that the tool returns metadata of official decisions (not full text) and points to a follow-up tool. However, it does not disclose any limits, authentication needs, or the nature of the response format, which would be helpful for a search 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?

The description is very concise: two sentence fragments and a follow-up suggestion. Every part is essential, with no redundant information. It front-loads the tool's core purpose and efficiently guides usage.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should ideally specify what fields are returned in the results. It only mentions '메타' (metadata), which is vague. While it hints at the utility, it could be more complete by listing typical result fields like case number, title, date, etc.

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?

Although the input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds valuable context by specifying that the query matches against subject name, case number, inquiry agency, and reply agency. This goes beyond the schema's basic description of 'keyword' and enhances understanding.

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 that this tool searches for statutory interpretation cases from the Ministry of Government Legislation, specifying the resource (법제처 lawSearch, target=expc) and content (official reply metadata). It distinguishes from sibling search tools like search_law or search_admin_appeals by mentioning PIPA and enforcement ordinance application cases, and points to the follow-up tool get_interpretation_text.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when in doubt about the interpretation of provisions' and directs users to get_interpretation_text for the full text. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context is clear enough for proper usage.

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