search_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not repeat the safety profile. It adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond annotations: automatic fallback to autonomous laws/administrative rules on zero results, automatic conversion of abbreviated names, appending of renamed and pending-effective amendments, and guidance on repealed laws. These details help the agent anticipate behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('[법령검색] 법령명·조례명·행정규칙명 키워드검색 → lawId, mst 획득') and then provides relevant behavioral details in a structured, readable manner. It is relatively compact given the amount of behavioral nuance conveyed. Some sentences could be tightened, but it remains efficient and well-organized.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns (lawId, mst), the types of legal texts covered, fallback behavior, abbreviation handling, and handling of repealed laws. It does not explicitly describe the output format (e.g., list vs. single result) or error conditions, but the display parameter hints at a list of results. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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% (both 'query' and 'display' are documented in the schema). The description itself does not add much beyond the schema: it mentions the query searches law names, but the schema already says that. The display parameter is not mentioned in the description. Since the schema fully covers parameter meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 this tool performs keyword searches for law names, ordinance names, and administrative rule names to obtain the identifiers lawId and mst. It explicitly frames itself as a precursor step ('before querying laws/ordinances/administrative rules to obtain identifiers'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_law_text or legal_analysis. The verb 'search' and resource are specific and the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear contextual guidance: it is meant to be used before querying laws, ordinances, or administrative rules to obtain identifiers. It also mentions automatic fallback behavior when zero results occur, which helps agents understand what to expect. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls slightly short of a perfect 5.

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