search_admin_appeals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states 'Search admin appeal precedents,' omitting details like result format, authentication (apiKey), rate limits, or any side effects. The schema gives parameter descriptions but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key function and resource, with no wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the search returns (list of cases with metadata?), pagination behavior, or typical use cases. An agent would need to infer behavior from the parameter descriptions 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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it is a single sentence that doesn't elaborate on parameters. The schema already explains each parameter (query, display, page, sort, apiKey) adequately.

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 '[행심] 행정심판례 검색' clearly specifies the action (검색/search) and the resource (행정심판례/admin appeal precedents), distinguishing it from other search tools targeting different legal documents. However, no explicit differentiation from siblings is provided beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_precedents or search_all. The description merely states what it does without context for selection.

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