advanced_search

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

No annotations provided. Description only mentions 'filter search' and 'complex conditions' but does not disclose behavior such as authentication requirements (apiKey is described in schema but not in description), rate limits, or result format. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is insufficient.

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?

Description is very short (one line), which is concise but risks being under-informative. It lacks structure and front-loads only a brief purpose. Could benefit from more detail without being verbose.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, error handling, or how to use the apiKey. The tool is complex, so more detail is necessary.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The tool description mentions filters (law type, department, date) which map to parameters, but adds little extra meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and description does not significantly add beyond 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?

Description states it's for advanced search with filters on law type, department, and enforcement date, matching the name and distinguishing it from simpler search tools among siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, and the phrasing '복합 조건 시' is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other search tools (e.g., search_law, search_ordinance). It does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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