search_tax_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses the non-obvious limitation that this server does not return binaries and instead provides a viewing screen URL. It also states the exact output fields, which is strong behavioral disclosure for a search tool.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second adds a critical limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search operation with an output schema available. The description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and the crucial binary/URL limitation, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema already describes `query` and `law_name`, and the description reinforces these by mentioning form name and related law. However, `page` and `limit` are not explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a gap for pagination semantics. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('검색한다', searches) and clearly identifies the resource (tax legal forms and schedules). It enumerates exact return fields (form name, related law, revision date, file identifier) and is clearly distinct from sibling tools focused on interpretations, decisions, guidance, or tax 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?

It provides clear context that this tool searches tax forms and returns metadata plus a viewing URL. It also explains the important limitation that binaries are not provided because the upstream system only serves them via POST form. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other document types or state when not to use this tool.

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