search_decisions

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already carry the safety profile, so the bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those: the default search does NOT include decision full text unless options.includeText=true and options.detailLimit=N are supplied — a non-obvious behavioral trait. No contradiction with annotations; a read-only search matches the declared hints.

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 dense but information-efficient: the core purpose (18-domain integrated search) is front-loaded, and the two usage rules (precedent full-text, nts routing) follow compactly. It crams a long domain list, but every element earns its place since it encodes the domain enum, which is otherwise only implicit in the schema.

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 6-parameter tool with nested options objects and no output schema, the description handles domain selection and the one critical behavior (includeText/detailLimit) well. However, it never describes return values or result shape, and with no output schema present the description carries that burden entirely. It also omits pagination/default-result semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 baseline is 3. The description rises above baseline by demonstrating real usage patterns for the options object — tying the undocumented option keys includeText and detailLimit to a concrete scenario (full-text precedent retrieval). Since the options schema is a generic propertyNames object with no per-key documentation, the description's example closes a real documentation gap.

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 opens with '[통합검색] 18개 도메인 ... 통합 검색' — a specific verb (통합 검색, integrated search) bound to an explicit resource (18 named legal domains across precedents, rulings, constitutional decisions, tax, treaties, etc.). The explicit enumeration of all 18 domains with 'domain으로 선택' distinguishes it from siblings like search_law and get_decision_text, which handle narrower scopes.

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?

Provides strong internal routing guidance: '판례 본문까지 필요하면 domain='precedent', options.includeText=true, options.detailLimit=N' tells the agent how to request full precedent text, and '세무 관련 국세청 직접 회신 해석은 domain='nts'' disambiguates a tricky domain mapping. It does not, however, state when to prefer this integrated search over sibling tools (e.g., search_law), so cross-tool routing is left to inference.

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