search_pipc_decisions

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

No annotations provided, so description should compensate. It states 'all decisions' but doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or read-only nature. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently covers types, domain core, and next tool without redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but description covers what data is accessible (위반 사례, 과징금, 시정조치). Could mention pagination, but not essential given schema parameters. Adequate for search tool.

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?

All 3 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds example keywords but doesn't significantly extend beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches PIPC decisions, lists specific types (심의·의결, 침해요인 평가, 분쟁조정), and distinguishes from sibling tool get_pipc_decision_text by mentioning full text retrieval as next step.

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?

Description indicates use case (direct check of violations, fines, corrective orders) and suggests follow-up tool. However, no explicit when-not or comparison with sibling search tools like search_privacy_cases.

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