get_delegated_laws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function; it does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, authentication requirements (though apiKey is in schema), rate limits, or what happens if no results are found.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain response format, pagination details, or how results are sorted. The large set of sibling tools requires more distinction, which is not provided.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds '소관부처별' which repeats the query parameter concept. It does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions for display, page, or apiKey.

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 retrieves a list of delegated laws (위임법령 목록) by competent ministry (소관부처별), specifically those without enacted enforcement decrees/rules. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like search_law or get_law_text.

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 searching delegated laws by ministry, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_law, get_law_text). No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided.

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