chain_ordinance_compare

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the chain process (상위법령→위임체계→전국 조례검색), giving a hint of behavior. However, it does not disclose what 'comparison' entails, return format, side effects, or safety details.

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 very short and front-loaded with purpose. However, the use of Korean jargon and emoji may reduce clarity for an English-based agent. Still efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (chain of operations, comparison logic) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of compared ordinances, a report) or the comparison criteria. The agent lacks context to use it reliably.

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 67% (two of three parameters described). The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema descriptions for query and parentLaw. Baseline of 3 applies as schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 '조례 비교' (ordinance comparison) and outlines a workflow from upper law to nationwide search. It distinguishes from other compare tools by focusing on ordinances and delegation chain, but the use of emoji and arrows may be ambiguous for agents.

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 phrase '자치법규 질문 시' implies usage when asking about autonomous laws, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are provided. Among siblings, there are many compare and search tools, yet no guidance on why this specific tool is chosen.

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