find_similar_precedents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication beyond the apiKey parameter, or has any rate limits. The effects of the apiKey parameter are unclear.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase), but at the cost of sufficient information. While brevity is valued, here it leaves gaps that reduce overall effectiveness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (legal precedents), the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what 'similar' means, how results are returned, or any constraints, leaving an agent with insufficient context.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('검색' meaning search) and the resource ('유사 판례' meaning similar precedents). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_precedents' or 'extract_precedent_keywords'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_precedents' or 'summarize_precedent'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context.

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