search_law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-expansion of abbreviations (약칭 자동 확장) and its coverage of upcoming amendments, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe the return format or any other side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and a special feature. Every clause serves a purpose 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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's scope, key use cases, and a behavioral quirk (auto-expansion). The schema covers parameter details. It does not explicitly state the return shape, but that is implied by the search function and not required given the absence of an output schema.

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 67%, with scope and upcoming well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about abbreviation expansion, which relates to query behavior, but does not directly explain query syntax. The schema handles most parameter semantics, and the description adds marginal value beyond it.

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 identifies the tool as a statute search (법제처 법령 검색) and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it covers chemical statutes outside smart search coverage and upcoming amendments. The verb+resource is specific and 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 explicitly states when to use: for laws outside smart search coverage and for detecting upcoming amendments. It implies smart_search is the alternative for other searches, but does not explicitly list exclusions. This is clear context with no stated when-not-to-use.

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