search_local_tax_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, and it delivers substantial behavioral disclosure: default sorting behavior, why the default matters (DRF score ordering pitfalls), and the implicit local-tax filter default. This exceeds the baseline for a search tool without 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 compact, three sentences, and front-loaded with purpose before behavioral warnings. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is dense with reasoning that could be slightly clearer. No wasted words.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, default behavior rationale, and filtering. It doesn't describe return format but output schema is absent, so a slightly richer note on results would be welcome. Overall complete enough for practical use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds context about the sort default justification (why ddes over score) and local-tax filter behavior, which adds value beyond schema. But it doesn't detail parameter syntax or constraints beyond what schema provides.

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 조세심판원 지방세 재결례 (local tax tribunal rulings) via 법제처 DRF. The specific verb+resource is clear and disambiguates from siblings like search_reduction_ordinance and search_moi_interpretation which target different document types.

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 provides strong usage context: it warns that the DRF default (score ordering) surfaces 10-year-old cases first and misleads practical judgment, explaining why default sort is ddes. It also notes the local-tax filter is ON by default. This gives clear behavioral guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the domain distinction.

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