search_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 describes the search functionality and abbreviation recognition, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The quirk about short law names is mentioned in the display parameter, but overall transparency is moderate.

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, front-loaded with purpose and efficiency. Every sentence adds value, and no extraneous information is present.

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 search tool with 4 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the search returns (law names, metadata) and mentions abbreviation recognition. It is fairly complete, though a bit more detail on return format could help.

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%. The description adds value by explaining abbreviation recognition in both main description and query parameter. The display parameter includes a note about a quirk with short law names, which goes beyond schema.

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 '법령 검색' (law search) with specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings by pointing to get_law_text and get_related_laws for further steps. It also mentions abbreviation recognition and scope prioritization.

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 indicates when to use this tool (searching laws) and provides next steps (get_law_text, get_related_laws). It implicitly contrasts with siblings but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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