search_precedents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says '검색' (search), implying read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs (apiKey parameter), rate limits, or data source (Korean Legal Information Institute?). Minimal transparency.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from additional structure or detail.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, the description is too vague. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how parameters like 'sort', 'fromDate', 'toDate' affect results. Insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the tool's generic purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states '대법원 판례 검색' (Supreme Court precedent search), indicating a specific resource and action. However, it implies only Supreme Court, while the schema allows filtering by any court, so it's slightly misleading. It lacks differentiation from sibling 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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