get_delegated_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output is a flat list of mappings and implies a read-only operation, but it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned list. Basic behavioral transparency is present but not rich.

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 concise at a few sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It includes an example and actionable next steps without unnecessary verbosity. 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 the lack of an output schema, the description explains the high-level return value (flat list of mappings) and provides an example count (59). However, it does not specify the exact fields in each mapping item, which would improve completeness. Nonetheless, for a simple tool, it is fairly 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% description coverage for the single parameter lawId, and the description reinforces its meaning (from search_law, for delegated relations). The description adds context beyond the schema by relating it to the overall workflow, so it scores above baseline.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns delegated law relations (법령 위임조문 관계) as a flat list mapping articles of the main law to enforcement decree/rules. It specifies the source (법제처 lawService) and provides an example (PIPA with 59 delegated articles), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_law_text or get_three_tier.

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 clear context by suggesting next steps (use get_law_text for text, get_three_tier for visualization) and gives an example usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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