law_collect

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

The description adds high-value non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: max_records is a global budget across all axes, early exhaustion is reported via stopped_early_note, and partial axis failures still continue and are reported via failed_axes. These warnings meaningfully inform the agent about failure modes and resource limits.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose first, then two warning lines. Every sentence carries distinct information, with key behavioral warnings front-loaded in a compact format.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. It covers important behavioral traits but omits most parameter semantics, output file structure, and return/meta details, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains max_records and vaguely references 'axes' for targets/queries. Required out_dir and other parameters like page_size, formats, and scope are left completely unexplained.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: 'collects the union of 갈래 × 검색어 and saves to a file', which distinguishes it from sibling search/status/body/citation tools by emphasizing batch collection and file output. However, the terms '갈래' and '검색어' are jargon that the reader must infer map to 'targets' and 'queries'.

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 implies usage for bulk collection across target/query combinations and saving to a file, but it never explicitly says when to choose law_collect over siblings like law_search or law_targets. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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