search_privacy_cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source, number of cases, retrieval method (BM25 with contextual retrieval), auto-attribution, and differentiator from other APIs. It falls short of mentioning pagination behavior or authentication needs.

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 information-dense without being verbose, covering core function, filters, differentiator, example, attribution, and sibling tool references in a logical order. Minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall 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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's operation, filtering capabilities, and output characteristic (attribution). It lacks description of result format but provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 tree filter structure, year range narrowing, and providing an example that illustrates parameter interaction, going beyond the schema definitions.

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 performs BM25 search on PIPC privacy.go.kr counseling cases and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools search_privacy_guides and search_pipc_decisions, making the purpose and differentiation unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, stating to use search_privacy_guides for official guides and search_pipc_decisions for violation decisions. It also gives a concrete example query.

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