search_privacy_corpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the retrieval method (BM25, Contextual Retrieval), filtering capability via source_type, and automatic PIPC attribution. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or result structure, which are minor gaps given no annotations.

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 concise, packing key information (coverage, differentiation, filtering, attribution, alternatives) into a single paragraph. It front-loads the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it remains highly readable.

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 the tool's complexity (2,432 chunks, BM25, source filtering), the description is quite complete. It covers scope, retrieval method, filtering, attribution, and alternatives. No output schema exists, and the description omits response format, but for a search tool this is acceptable given standard expectations.

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% with all three parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the source_type enum values ('guide=PIPC 공식 안내서 / case=privacy.go.kr 상담사례') and providing query examples, 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's purpose as a unified BM25 search over PIPC official guides and counseling cases. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like search_privacy_cases and search_privacy_guides by noting it is broader and includes both sources.

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 recommends this as the first-entry search tool and explicitly suggests narrower alternatives ('다음: 더 좁은 검색은 search_privacy_cases·search_privacy_guides, 법조문은 search_law·get_law_text'). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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