discover_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is a meta/category-search tool for 80+ specialized domains. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations — '카테고리 검색' (category search) is consistent with a read-only, idempotent lookup.

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 compact — a single sentence with the meta/fallback context front-loaded before the category list. While the parenthetical enumeration is dense, there is no waste and the key routing instruction comes first.

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 simple one-parameter discovery tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient: it states when to use it and what it searches. However, it does not describe the output/return format (there is no output schema), and the Korean-only text plus ambiguous '위 도구' reference leaves some agent-facing details unresolved.

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%: the 'intent' parameter is described with meaning and examples ('공정위', '조약', '용어', '헌재'). The description's listing of categories (조세심판, 관세, 헌재, etc.) reinforces what 'intent' accepts but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already carries the heavy lifting for the single parameter.

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 a clear purpose: a meta-tool for category-based search across 80+ specialized legal tools (tax appeal, customs, constitutional court, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by branding itself as '[메타]' (meta) and a fallback when standard tools fail. The purpose is specific and recognizable, though it never names actual sibling tools and is written in Korean.

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?

It gives an explicit condition — '위 도구로 안 되는 경우' (when the above tools don't work) — framing it as a fallback/discovery gateway. However, '위 도구' is vague and does not identify which siblings it applies to, nor does it state when NOT to use it or what 'not working' means. The guidance is present but underspecified.

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