search_interpretations

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, critical information like pagination limits, result count, or whether it returns metadata is omitted.

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 brief (one sentence in a bracket), which is concise. However, the imbalance between brevity and information density means it sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded with the purpose but lacks depth.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of 'interpretation cases', or how to use parameters effectively. For a tool with complex filtering (sort, date range), this is incomplete.

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%, so the input schema already describes all parameters adequately. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline. Providing context for parameters like 'fromDate' and 'toDate' (e.g., '회신일' meaning reply date) would improve clarity.

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 tool searches for legal interpretation cases (법령해석례 검색). The name and description align, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_precedents or search_law. However, the title is null and the description could be more precise about the scope (e.g., administrative vs constitutional).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says what it does without specifying context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given many sibling search tools, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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