search_privacy_corpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the retrieval method (BM25, Contextual Retrieval), corpus size, source_type behavior, and automatic PIPC attribution with license. It does not detail response structure or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits for an agent selecting the tool are covered.

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 and somewhat long, but every sentence carries distinct information: corpus composition, differentiation, usage guidance, parameter capability, attribution, and sibling routing. The most important purpose and differentiator are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the corpus scope, retrieval technique, attribution behavior, and routing to alternatives. It does not explicitly describe the return shape beyond attribution, but it gives enough context for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that source_type can split guide/case searches and by characterizing the query domain as PIPC practical materials. It reinforces the query examples in the schema without duplicating them.

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 names a specific verb (integrated BM25 search) and a precise resource (PIPC official guides + privacy.go.kr consultation cases, 2,699 chunks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it covers PIPC practical materials that the law-API lacks, and explicitly routes narrower searches to search_privacy_cases/search_privacy_guides and law text to search_law/get_law_text.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'LLM 첫 진입에 가장 자연스러운 도구' tells the agent when to start here, and the closing sentence names the exact alternatives for narrower searches and statutory text. It also mentions source_type filtering as a way to split guide vs. case searches, giving concrete usage direction.

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