legal_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds detailed operational context for each mode, such as citation verification against a government database, case citation tracking, and backward graph generation, which exceeds annotation coverage.

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 a single dense paragraph with a bullet-like structure using '|' to separate modes. Each mode is described concisely with key details, no fluff, and the most important information (mode list) is front-loaded.

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 all modes, required parameters, and some behavioral details. However, it lacks any description of output format or return values, which is problematic given the absence of an output schema. This leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool will produce.

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 100%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters per mode and explaining their roles (e.g., 'jo' for impact_map required, 'date' for applicable_law required). This extra context clarifies parameter usage 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 is a Korean-law analysis tool with four distinct modes (verify_citations, cite_check, applicable_law, impact_map), each with specific purposes. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_law and get_law_text by being an integrated analysis 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 explicitly specifies required parameters for each mode and provides context for when to use each mode. However, it does not directly tell when to avoid this tool in favor of a sibling, though the mode-specific guidance is clear.

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