explore_legal_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns 'a comprehensive markdown document containing the main article and all connected legal texts' and mentions the graph nature. It does not disclose side effects or safety info, but as a read-only search tool, that is acceptable though not richly detailed.

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 purpose statement, numbered list, usage examples, and returns. It is efficiently written without redundancy, earning a 4.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and return format. Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete. It does not discuss limitations, but none are apparent. Score 4.

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 has one required 'query' parameter with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by providing two concrete usage examples ('Higher Education Act Article 20', '고등교육법 제20조'), which clarify expected query format. However, it could explicitly state that the query should be a legal provision reference, so 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Perform a Deep Search' and names the resource (Legal Graph). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it provides 'full context of a law provision' including references and presidential decrees, which is distinct from simple search tools like search_law_articles.

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 'Use this when you want to understand the full context of a law provision', providing clear context. It also includes usage examples. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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