lawink_statute_by_precedent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the three-step process: find similar precedents, aggregate cited statutes by frequency, and return results. However, it does not detail potential edge cases (e.g., no results found) or rate limiting.

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 front-loaded with emoji and bold, structured with bullet points. It is concise despite covering multiple aspects (purpose, usage, process, validation). A minor improvement could be to shorten the validation example.

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 complexity (precedent search, citation aggregation, ranking) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the process, what the result includes (statutes with source precedents), and its advantage over a sibling tool. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'query' is a natural language case/question. The 'limit' parameter is implied by the default value but not explicitly described. The description adds value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: deriving legal statutes from a natural language case by finding similar precedents and returning the cited statutes ranked by frequency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lawink_statute_semantic_search by highlighting the avoidance of lexical bias.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when needing legal basis (근거 법령 도출). It contrasts with lawink_statute_semantic_search, explains why this tool is more accurate, and provides a validation example (임대차 → 민법 제618·615·654조).

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