legal_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool is composite, integrating multiple APIs in parallel, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 relatively long but well-structured as a list of task types with examples. It front-loads the purpose. However, some redundancy exists and it could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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's complexity (12 parameters, composite nature, no output schema), the description covers purpose, task types, parameter usage, and sibling differentiation. It lacks return value details, but annotations already provide behavioral safety cues.

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% with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The tool description adds task-specific context (e.g., '도구 설명의 task 표 참조' for task, and qualifiers like '[document_review 전용·필수]') that enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 for multi-level Korean legal research integrating multiple APIs, designed for complex queries. It lists specific task types and explicitly distinguishes from simpler siblings like search_law/get_law_text by advising to use those for simple lookups.

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?

Guidance is explicit: use this tool when a single lookup does not suffice, otherwise prefer search_law/get_law_text. Each task type is described with examples, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond the sibling comparison.

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