ordinance_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the extraction and comparison logic and the automatic flagging of potentially out-of-date ordinances. It does not contradict any annotations and provides useful insight beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that packs all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. While it is concise and efficient, the Korean phrasing is somewhat lengthy, and breaking it into two sentences might improve readability slightly.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function and the kind of results it provides (extracted superior laws, date comparison, flagging). For a tool with four optional parameters and clear annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to understand its capabilities.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (one of ordinSeq or ordinanceName should be specified), provides aliases (id for ordinSeq, query for ordinanceName), and gives examples for ordinanceName. This enriches the schema's basic 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 extracts superior laws cited by ordinances, compares effective dates, and flags when superior laws have been amended after the ordinance's effective date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_law and legal_research by focusing on the radar/flagging functionality for ordinance revision assessment.

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 targets users ('조례 담당 공무원') and states the purpose ('상위법 개정 추적·조례 정비 판단용'). It mentions that either ordinSeq or ordinanceName must be specified, which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives from the sibling list.

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