search_privacy_cases

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses search method (BM25, contextual retrieval), auto-attribution of PIPC license, and filter behavior. Lacks explicit read-only statement but sufficient 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?

Somewhat long but front-loaded with purpose, then filters, examples, differentiation, and sibling references. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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 and no output schema, description covers search scope, filters, examples, and attribution. Lacks output format details but adequate for a search tool with good schema coverage.

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 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds extra meaning: tree filter support for categories, year range narrowing, and example usage with specific categories.

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 searches PIPC privacy cases (1,745) with BM25 and contextual retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it covers practical replies not in law-making API and explicitly mentions alternatives: search_privacy_guides and search_pipc_decisions.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance including example query ('의료기관 환자 동의' + category3='보건·의료'), filter capabilities, and when to use sibling tools for official guides or violation decisions.

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