find_regulations_by_upper_law

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the input constraints (article, institutions, matchMode, maxResults) but does not describe output format, pagination, error handling, or safety traits for a search tool. Minimal behavioral insight beyond schema.

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 a single concise sentence covering the core purpose. However, it could benefit from better front-loading of key information (e.g., tool category) or structured formatting for quicker parsing. Minimalist but 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavior. It only describes input parameters, leaving the user uninformed about what results (list of regulations, metadata?) or how the tool handles edge cases (no matches). Incomplete for a search tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'article parameter allows limiting to specific article') but does not substantively enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs a reverse search for ALIO regulations based on a higher law name, with optional article restriction. It uses specific verbs ('역검색') and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling search tools.

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 reverse searching regulations by higher law, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_alio_regulation_text' or exclude cases like direct law search. Context is implied, not explicit.

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