get_law_statistics

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states it returns a list. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. The Korean word '조회' implies read-only, but this is implicit.

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, consisting of a single short sentence (or two short phrases) that conveys the essential information without any unnecessary 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?

The description is minimal. Given the lack of output schema, more details about the returned data (e.g., what 'TOP N' means, sort order, response structure) would be helpful. However, for a simple list-returning tool, it may be partially adequate.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 the tool returns a list of recently amended laws within a specified period, which differentiates it from other search tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_recent_alio_revisions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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