lawink_statute_precedents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a list of precedents but does not mention pagination behavior, performance implications, read-only nature, or any other side effects. This is minimal for a data retrieval tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then clarifying the key parameter. It is concise and avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter explanations.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits details about pagination, ordering, return format, and error conditions. For an agent to correctly invoke the tool, more contextual information is needed.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description explains the meaning of 'statute_id' (UUID of statutory provision) but does not explain 'skip' and 'limit' parameters, which are pagination controls. With 3 parameters and 1 explained, the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists precedents citing a specific statutory provision, using a specific verb ('목록' as list) and resource ('판례' precedents). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lawink_statute_by_precedent' which does the reverse mapping, ensuring the agent knows when to select this tool.

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 implied usage context by labeling it a 'core lawyer function — statute→precedent tracking', but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No alternative tool names are mentioned in the description.

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