search_interpretation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (a search) and the nature of the content (ministry Q&A responses), but does not describe output format, pagination, authentication, or any limitations. It adds some behavioral context beyond the name but falls short of a comprehensive disclosure.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences. It front-loads the action (법령해석례 검색) and then provides useful context (equivalent to ministry Q&A, purpose for identifying disputes). No filler or redundant information.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and use case, but lacks details on expected results (e.g., list of cases, metadata) and any constraints. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete for a fully informed invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what the 'query' parameter should contain (e.g., keywords, statutory provision numbers, etc.). The description only says 'search interpretation cases' without guiding the agent on how to construct the query, leaving the sole parameter under-specified.

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 searches for legal interpretation cases (법령해석례 검색) and specifies the use case (identifying disputed interpretation issues). It distinguishes from siblings like search_law and search_admrule by focusing on interpretation cases, with the added context of ministry Q&A responses.

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 context for when to use this tool: when checking issues where interpretation of provisions is divided (조문 해석이 갈리는 쟁점 확인용). It implies this is for searching interpretation precedents, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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