compare_admin_rule_old_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a comparison but does not describe side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are missing. The underlying API behavior (e.g., whether it modifies data, requires authentication) is not disclosed.

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 sentence) and front-loaded with the category [행정규칙]. Every word serves a purpose, providing the two main usage modes without fluff. Ideal length for quick scanning.

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 has 3 parameters (one optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the output format or behavior when parameters are empty. It does not describe what a 'comparison table' looks like or how to handle missing id/query. The comparison action is ambiguous, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal new information (e.g., that query is for search and id for comparison table), repeating the schema's content. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles semantics well.

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 compares old and new administrative rules. It mentions two modes: search by query and view comparison table by id. The name and context distinguish it from sibling tools like compare_articles (for laws) or compare_old_new (possibly for general old/new comparison). However, the description is in Korean, which may not be optimal for all AI 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for administrative rules via the bracketed prefix and name, but does not provide criteria or exclusions. The two modes are mentioned but not contextualized against siblings like search_admin_rule or compare_alio_regulations.

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