lawink_statute_semantic_search

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

Discloses known biases (lexical matching bias), unreliability of similarity_score (0.84-0.89 range), and potential for irrelevant top results. Also notes that statute_id can be used for expansion via lawink_statute_precedents.

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?

Description is informative and front-loaded with caution, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but could be more structured.

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?

No output schema, but description explains key result elements (similarity_score, statute_id) and integration with other tools. Covers limitations and usage context well, though missing explicit return field documentation.

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%, but description explains query parameter as natural language ('query=자연어 사안/질의'). However, limit parameter is only mentioned as having default 10 without additional meaning. Partial compensation for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool does direct semantic search of statute provisions ('법령 조문 직접 시맨틱 검색') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool lawink_statute_by_precedent by advising to use that sibling first. The warning about being supplementary/experimental further clarifies its specific role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (supplementary when primary path fails), when-not-to-use (not as primary lawyer tool), and an alternative (use lawink_statute_by_precedent first). Also specifies query format as natural language.

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