get_related_laws

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. It accurately describes the return of hierarchical relationships and mapping sources (PIPC combined laws plus ministry mapping). No mention of destructive or auth requirements, which is acceptable for a read-only 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 concise and front-loaded with the main action in parentheses. Every sentence adds unique value: target service, hierarchy details, data sources, parameter advice, and follow-up steps. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (hierarchy and related laws) and includes context about data sources. It covers the main behavioral aspects for a 2-parameter tool, though the exact return structure could be more concrete.

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 already fully describes both parameters with origins from search_law results (100% coverage). The description only adds reinforcement that mst is recommended and one parameter is needed, providing minimal additional semantic value.

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 related laws and subordinate administrative rules with a specific target (lsStmd) and returns hierarchical relationships. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_delegated_laws or get_intelligent_related_laws, leaving some ambiguity.

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 recommends using mst parameter and provides next-step tools (get_law_text, search_admin_rule) for text retrieval, implying this tool is for structure. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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