get_law_reference

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

Description implies a safe read operation, but annotation destructiveHint: true contradicts this. The description does not disclose any destructive behavior, and the conflict undermines transparency. Score 1 due to 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage hint and disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Without output schema, description adequately lists return fields (names, summary, URL, risk level, full text when available). Mentions typical use case. Could briefly note network requirements for live=true, but overall complete.

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 description adds valuable examples for law_id and explains live parameter behavior (fetch latest vs. bundled). Provides additional context beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool looks up a bundled Korean law provision by ID and returns specific fields. Also mentions typical use case of expanding a related_laws ID from a scan. No need to differentiate from siblings as they are unrelated.

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?

Describes typical usage: 'expand a related_laws ID returned by a scan.' Also clarifies it's reference material, not legal advice. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient given narrow scope.

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