search-law

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the ability to search by name or content, which is already present in the searchType parameter of the schema. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the response format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the schema.

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 two short, clear sentences in Korean. It front-loads the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, 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 tool has 7 parameters, 3 enums, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the typical search workflow (e.g., that results can be followed up using get-law-detail), nor does it clarify return behavior or default settings. The description only conveys the basic search capability, leaving the agent without enough context for effective invocation.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that searching by law name or content is possible, which mirrors the searchType parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Korean laws and specifies the two search modes (by law name or content). This is a specific verb+resource pairing and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get-law-detail, which presumably retrieves details of a specific 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 the tool should be used for searching laws, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get-law-detail, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context signal shows get-law-detail as a sibling, but the description itself does not reference it.

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