get_three_tier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'compares' but does not mention whether it modifies data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns any specific format. This minimal disclosure leaves agents uncertain about side effects or prerequisites.

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, effectively communicating the tool's purpose without extraneous text. However, it lacks structural elements like headings or bullet points that could improve readability for agents.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not describe what the comparison result looks like, leaving agents unsure about the output format. Given the complexity and numerous siblings, more context is needed for effective selection.

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 all parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 performs a three-tier comparison of law, enforcement decree, and enforcement rules regarding delegated or cited clauses. The verb '비교' (compare) and resource specification distinguish it from siblings like compare_articles or compare_old_new.

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 comparing three-tier legal texts with focus on delegation/citation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_articles or compare_old_new. No exclusions or preferences are stated.

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