search_public_institution_rules

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

The description only states 'search' without detailing behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose authentication requirements (implied by apiKey parameter), rate limits, or data sources.

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 a single concise sentence. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from more 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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral quirks, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already clearly describes each parameter's purpose.

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 that the tool searches public institution regulations. However, given the presence of sibling tools like search_public_corp_rules and search_institution, it does not differentiate between them, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.

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. It lacks explicit context for appropriate use, such as specifying that it is for Korean public institution regulations or noting prerequisites.

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