smart_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: AI synonym matching (with an example '스카이'→고소작업대), cross-cutting search across multiple regulation types, and a specific exclusion. However, it does not disclose behavior around pagination, result format, or any rate/auth requirements, which are common for search tools. Given the zero annotation baseline, the description provides meaningful but incomplete behavioral transparency.

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 three focused sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second highlights a key feature (synonym matching), and the third gives an exclusion with an alternative. Every sentence contributes new information, and the most important usage context is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (cross-legal search, 2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers essential context: corpus scope, exclusions, synonym feature, and an alternative tool. It does not explain the 'page' parameter or result structure, which would be expected for a paginated search. Still, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for most queries.

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 describes 'query' as '검색어 (자연어 가능)' but provides no description for 'page'. The tool description adds value by explaining that queries support AI synonym matching and are natural-language friendly, which enriches the query parameter semantics. However, 'page' remains undocumented in both schema and description. With 50% schema coverage and some compensations, a 4 is appropriate.

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 is the '1차 진입점' (primary entry point) for safety and health queries and enumerates the specific legal sources it searches: 산업안전보건법·령·규칙, 안전보건기준에 관한 규칙, 고시·훈령·예규, 중대재해처벌법, KOSHA GUIDE. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual corpora such as search_law or search_kosha_guide.

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 the tool: '안전보건 질의의 1차 진입점' (first entry point for safety/health queries). It also provides a clear exclusion: chemical laws (화관법·화평법·위험물법) are not covered, and directs users to 'search_law' instead. This explicit when/when-not and named alternative fully satisfies the guidelines dimension.

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