search_by_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only states the happy path (searches by region) and does not disclose result ordering, pagination, error behavior, or output format. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 absence of annotations and the 0% schema description coverage, the description is too terse to be complete. It lacks usage guidance, meaningful parameter semantics for 'limit', and behavioral context, leaving the agent to infer critical details from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It clarifies that region_name is the regional filter but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its effect. The description does not fully bridge the gap left by 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 uses the specific verb '검색합니다' (searches) and clearly specifies the resource '자치법규' (local ordinances) and scope '지역별' (by region). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from siblings like search_law and search_by_agency.

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 when to use the tool (when searching ordinances by region) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_law or search_by_agency, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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