chain_procedure_detail

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the tool chains multiple steps (law→3-tier comparison→annexes/forms), but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or what the output contains. This is moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise—one line with an emoji and bullet-style format. It is front-loaded with a clear chain indicator. While concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage).

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 tool's complexity as a chain tool and the lack of an output schema, the description explains the chaining process (law→3-tier→annexes/forms) but does not describe what is returned or how the chain is presented. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has two parameters: 'query' (with a short Korean description and examples) and 'apiKey' (no description). Schema coverage is 50%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without improvement.

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: it is a chain tool for procedures and costs that automatically links laws to three-tier comparisons and annexes/forms. The Korean text specifies it is for application/procedure questions, distinguishing it from sibling chain tools like chain_action_basis.

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 says 'When applying/procedure questions,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives among the many siblings, which would strengthen the guidance.

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