analyze_regulation_delegation

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It mentions linking to searchLaw and slowness (in param description, not main), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like read-only nature, result behavior for missing regId, or error handling. Significant gaps for a tool with no 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?

Description is concise with two sentences in Korean, front-loading the main purpose and key option. It is well-structured and efficient, though adding a brief note on usage context could improve without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return format or behavior. It does not specify what the extracted references look like, whether they include IDs or text, or how errors are handled. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 3 required), the description is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the includeLawLookup option and bridge with search_law, but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already contains. No compensation needed.

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?

Description clearly states the main purpose: extracting references to higher laws/regulations from regulation text. It mentions the includeLawLookup option and connection to search_law. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like analyze_alio_regulation, though the focus on delegation is implied.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_alio_regulation or get_delegated_laws. The description mentions bridging with search_law but does not explain when the includeLawLookup option should be enabled or provide decision criteria.

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