search_by_agency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the basic search function. It does not mention the return format, whether results are a list or detail, pagination, or any constraints beyond the agency filter. The output schema exists but is not described.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple search tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage in the description, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation context. While the output schema may cover return values, the lack of usage guidelines and parameter semantics makes it incomplete for successful 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?

The description provides no parameter information, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema contains enums and defaults, but the description does not compensate by explaining what 'type' means (법령 vs 행정규칙) or how 'limit' works. Parameters are left to be inferred entirely from the schema.

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 laws (법령) by responsible ministry (소관부처). The verb 'searches' and resource 'laws' are specific, and the agency filter distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_region and search_law.

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 use when searching laws by agency, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus general search_law or search_by_region, nor any exclusions. This fits the 'implied usage' category.

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