search_fire_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details: abbreviation support and the empty-query fallback to a list. However, it does not disclose return format, sorting, pagination, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single compact sentence that covers the core function, source, abbreviation feature, and empty-query behavior. Every clause provides value, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it conveys the search scope, source, and what happens when the query is empty. Minor gaps such as exact result fields are acceptable given the sibling get_fire_law_text implies this tool returns a list.

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 both 'query' and 'display' already described in the input schema. The description essentially repeats the query parameter's behavior (abbreviation support, empty-query listing), adding little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: searching fire-related statutes (소방 관계 법령 검색) with a source (법제처) and abbreviation support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_fire_stats and search_fire_precedents by focusing on laws, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Provides clear context that this tool is for searching Korean fire statutes and explains empty-query behavior (displays a list of fire statutes). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_fire_law_text or other siblings, leaving usage guidance largely implied.

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