search_ftc_decisions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs (apiKey is optional but not explained), pagination behavior, or result format. Only the basic search function is noted.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks essential usage and behavioral context. While not verbose, it is under-informative for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional cues.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, required fields, enums, and no output schema. The description does not explain return format, sorting behavior, pagination details, or how to handle apiKey. It is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, which are adequate.

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 searches for Korean Fair Trade Commission decision documents ('공정거래위원회 결정문 검색'), with a distinguishing prefix '[공정위]'. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools targeting other commissions.

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 (e.g., search_acr_decisions, search_nlrc_decisions). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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