ordinance_radar

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are already provided and consistent. The description adds behavioral context: it automatically extracts citations, compares dates, and flags potential issues. No contradictions.

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 long sentence that is dense with information. While it is front-loaded with the purpose, it could be more concise or broken into two sentences for readability.

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 the core functionality and inputs. However, it lacks details about the output format or how results are presented, leaving some gaps for a tool that produces a comparison and flagging result.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining aliases (id for ordinSeq, query for ordinanceName) and the relationship between parameters, though the schema already provides basic clarity.

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: extracting parent laws cited by ordinances, comparing implementation dates, and flagging potential revision needs. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_law (which searches laws) and legal_analysis (which provides general analysis).

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 ordinance officers for tracking parent law revisions and provides that one of id/ordinSeq or ordinanceName must be specified. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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