search_fire_precedents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the source (법제처) and topical scope, but does not mention output format, pagination, or safety profile. As a read-only search operation, inherent safety mitigates some risk, but details are limited.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and scope. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, and every sentence adds value.

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 2-parameter search tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose and topical scope. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but given the low complexity and clear search nature, the description is mostly complete. An explicit note on return type would have been beneficial.

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%, with both parameters (query and display) fully documented including examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb '검색' (search) and clearly identifies the resource as fire-related legal precedents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_fire_stats (statistics) and search_fire_law (laws) by specifying '판례' (precedents).

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 implies usage by listing covered topics (소방시설, 위험물, 소방공무원) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides context but no exclusions or direct comparison with siblings.

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