verify_annex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'detects existence', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. The brevity leaves significant gaps.

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 very concise with one sentence and an example. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is overly minimal; additional structured details could be included without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value (e.g., boolean, list), error conditions, or behavior when 'byeolpyo' is null. It feels incomplete for a detection 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning to the 'byeolpyo' parameter by providing an example ('별표 1'), but does not explain the 'law_name' parameter or its format. Overall, some value is added, but not sufficient to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 states 'detects existence of annexes in statutes' with an example parameter value. It clearly identifies the verb (detect) and resource (annexes in statutes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_annexes' or 'verify_article', but the verb implies a distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_annexes' or 'verify_article'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context-specific usage instructions.

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