ordinance_radar

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

The description discloses the core behavioral logic (extraction, comparison, flagging) beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It adds practical context about what the tool does internally, which helps the agent understand its action scope.

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 moderately concise but uses a run-on structure and specialized notation (e.g., Korean with dashes). It could be clearer and more fred-loaded while preserving the key 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not specify the return format, e.g., whether it returns a list of flagged items or a summary. It also does not address handling when both groups of parameters are omitted, leaving edge cases ambiguous.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description provides some guidance (e.g., indicating that ordinSeq/id or ordinanceName should be specified), but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 purpose: extracting higher-laws cited by an ordinance, comparing enforcement dates, and flagging cases where the higher law was amended after the ordinance's enactment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law (general search) or legal_analysis (broader analysis).

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 identifies the target users (ordinance officials) and specifies that the input must include either ordinSeq/id or ordinanceName. While it does not explicitly outline when not to use this tool, the specificity makes the usage context clear.

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