ordinance_radar

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the extraction and comparison process and the automatic flagging of candidates for review. This is consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. While it is a single paragraph, it contains essential information without redundancy. Minor improvements could include bullet points for clarity.

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 input parameters are well covered, but the output format is not described. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should briefly mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of flagged ordinances or comparison results). The openWorldHint partially mitigates this gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value over the schema. However, it clarifies the relationship between id/ordinSeq and query/ordinanceName, and provides example usage, which supports effective parameter selection.

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 specific function: extracting higher-level laws from ordinances, comparing effective dates, and flagging discrepancies for maintenance review. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_law or legal_analysis by focusing on ordinance alignment with parent legislation.

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 indicates the target users (ordinance officials) and required parameters (ordinSeq or ordinanceName), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives. The context of sibling tools is implied but not directly addressed.

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