get_batch_alio_regulations

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions efficiency but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or mutability from the description alone.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('여러 규정/조문 일괄 조회'), then adds constraint and benefit. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description lacks details about the return format, especially given that there is no output schema. For a batch tool that may return aggregated results or handle partial failures, this information is critical. It also does not explain behavior when some items fail or the overall structure of the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description states that each item requires institution, regId, and article, which mirrors the schema requirements. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or formatting details.

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 batch queries of multiple regulations/articles, with a maximum of 20 items. It distinguishes itself from repeating single calls by highlighting efficiency in tokens and calls. The verb '일괄 조회' (batch query) and resource '규정/조문' (regulations/articles) are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using this tool when querying multiple items, as it is more efficient than repeated single calls. It specifies the maximum batch size (20). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool, such as for queries requiring complex filtering or returning large amounts of data.

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