get_linked_ordinance_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the general purpose and does not mention required authentication (apiKey), pagination behavior, or what the returned data contains. It is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond a high-level query.

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 short (two sentences) and efficiently conveys the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could benefit from a slightly more structured layout (e.g., listing key parameters or usage notes). Still, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward query tool.

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's complexity (linking laws and autonomous laws) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response format, pagination, or what 'correspondence relationship' entails. An agent would lack critical context to reliably use this 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it merely restates the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already describes all parameters adequately.

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 queries the correspondence relationship between law articles and autonomous law articles (법령 조문과 자치법규 조문 간 대응 관계 조회). It uses a specific verb (조회) and identifies the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar tools like get_linked_ordinances or get_linked_laws_from_ordinance, which are siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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