get_delegated_laws

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions returning a flat list, but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or potential side effects. The behavior is largely implied as a simple query, so it is minimally adequate.

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 very concise with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear structure, including example and follow-up hints. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (flat list of mapping) and provides context about the service. It could be slightly more detailed about the list structure, but it is sufficient for a single-parameter 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 schema has 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the mapping (본법 조문 → 시행령·시행규칙 위임 조문) and provides an example (PIPA with 59 delegated provisions), enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb '반환' (return) and resource '법령 위임조문 관계' (delegated law provision relationships). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law_text and get_three_tier by explicitly mentioning them as next steps.

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 explains that the tool is used to check all delegated provisions of a main law, and provides follow-up tool suggestions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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