search_admrule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a mapping use case but fails to describe return format, pagination, required permissions, or side effects. This is minimal guidance 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and followed by a specific use case. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a usage context. However, it lacks parameter details and return value expectations, leaving the agent to infer how to construct the query and interpret results. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating the query relates to administrative rules and indirectly suggesting it may be a notice name. However, it does not explicitly specify the query format or acceptable values, so it only marginally adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: searching for administrative rules (고시·훈령·예규). It also provides a specific use case—mapping notice names from smart search results to Ministry of Government Legislation IDs—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law or search_interpretation.

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 explicitly states a concrete trigger scenario ('when mapping the notice name from smart search results to the ID'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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