get_linked_ordinances

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states '목록' (list) implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm safety, auth needs (apiKey is optional per schema), or rate limits. No extra behavioral context beyond basic operation.

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?

Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and direct.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain pagination, result format, or the optional apiKey's role. For a list tool it is acceptable but could provide more context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 lists autonomous regulations linked to a specific law, using specific verb '조회' (search) and resource '전국 조례/규칙' (nationwide ordinances/rules). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_linked_laws_from_ordinance' (reverse direction) and 'get_linked_ordinance_articles' (articles within ordinances).

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 finding ordinances related to a law but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor mentions alternatives. It lacks when-not or explicit context for selection among siblings.

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