search_ai_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'AI 검색' and '의미검색' (semantic search) but does not disclose specific behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, or potential limitations beyond the comparison with search_law.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage context. It is front-loaded with the most important information—purpose and key distinction from sibling tool.

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?

While the schema covers parameters well, the description lacks information about output format, pagination behavior, or any response characteristics. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more contextual completeness would be beneficial. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with 6 parameters.

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%, and the input schema already describes each parameter adequately (e.g., query is '자연어 질문 또는 일상 상황'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is an AI-powered semantic search for legal articles, using natural language. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_law' by noting that if the user knows the law name, 'search_law' is more accurate.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('법령명 몰라도 사용 가능') and when to use the alternative 'search_law' ('법령명을 알면 search_law가 더 정확'), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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