chain_amendment_track

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the chaining behavior, the two distinct modes, and the date range defaults, which goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an Args section, a Returns section, and examples. Every line earns its place and the examples concretely demonstrate invocation.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the Returns line plus mode descriptions provide necessary context. It could be clearer on how date range interacts with 'latest two versions' and what 'Response format' means, but overall it is complete enough for a 6-parameter tool.

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 0% schema coverage, the description documents all six parameters with meanings and defaults. The law_name example and article explanation (0=summary, 52=제52조) are especially helpful. oc and type remain terse, but they are at least identified as an override and response format.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Track') and resource ('law amendment history') and adds optional article-level diff. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing this as a chained operation that combines amendment summary and article diff.

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 conditional usage: article=0 returns only the revision list, while a specified article triggers a diff between the two most recent revisions. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like law_amendment_summary or article_amendment_diff.

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