search_english_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication (though apiKey parameter suggests it), rate limits, or any side effects. The single sentence fails to inform the agent about tool behavior.

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 only one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential details such as the scope of search or return format, making it insufficiently informative for an AI agent.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description should at least mention what is returned (e.g., a list of law titles, identifiers). It does not provide enough context about the search scope or results, leaving the agent without necessary completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (query, display, page, sort, apiKey). The description adds no extra parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains parameter semantics sufficiently.

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 '[영문] 영문 법령 검색.' translates to 'Search English law.' It states the resource (English law) and a verb (search) but is extremely vague. It does not specify whether it searches law names, texts, or official translations, nor does it distinguish from sibling search tools like search_law or search_ai_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling search tools (e.g., search_law, search_ai_law, search_precedents) but no comparative context or conditions for use.

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