legal_analysis

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) align with the description, which adds useful behavioral context: 'LLM 환각 방지' (hallucination prevention), '한국형 Citator', and mode-specific behaviors like deep scanning. No contradictions; description enhances understanding beyond annotations.

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 block but well-structured with mode markers and explanations. Each sentence adds value, covering four modes efficiently. Slightly verbose due to mode details, but necessary for completeness.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains all 11 parameters across four modes, including defaults and optional flags. It covers every mode's purpose, inputs, and behavioral nuances, making the tool fully understandable.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description further groups parameters by mode, clarifying which are required for each analysis type. This adds organizational value 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's purpose: integrated verification and analysis for Korean law with four distinct modes. Each mode is explicitly defined (e.g., 'verify_citations', 'cite_check'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_law or get_law_text which focus on retrieval.

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 specifies when to use each mode by listing required parameters and function (e.g., 'verify_citations' for checking citations in text, 'cite_check' for case law citation tracking). It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the mode-based structure provides clear guidance.

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