search_privacy_corpus

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: algorithm (BM25), corpus size (2,202 chunks), retrieval method (Contextual Retrieval), source_type filtering, and PIPC attribution license. It also notes what the tool does not cover (법제처 API data). This is thorough 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 dense but front-loaded: key purpose and differentiation come first. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging the license mention). Overall efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 no output schema, the description omits details about the response format (e.g., fields returned). However, it does mention attribution attachment, which hints at response content. For a search tool with clear parameters, the missing output structure is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise complete.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it provides domain-specific examples for query ('의료기관 환자 동의'), clarifies the semantics of source_type (guide vs case vs all), and explains the display parameter's default and maximum. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it searches over PIPC guides and privacy.go.kr cases using BM25, with specific counts and a clear verb ('통합 BM25 검색'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the broad corpus, while narrower tools are explicitly listed as alternatives.

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 gives explicit recommendations: 'LLM 첫 진입에 가장 자연스러운 도구' (most natural entry point) and mentions when to use alternatives ('더 좁은 검색은 search_privacy_cases·search_privacy_guides, 법조문은 search_law·get_law_text'). This provides clear context for tool selection.

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