get_three_tier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the comparison operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive. While the nature of the tool implies a safe query, transparency could be improved by stating that it does not modify any data.

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, using four sentences to cover purpose, parameters, an example, and follow-up tools. It is front-loaded with the main objective. A slight improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format or structure of the comparison results. While the example implies what the output looks like, explicit details (e.g., whether it's a list of mappings, fields returned) are missing, which reduces completeness for a simple tool with two parameters.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: mst must be the '본법 mst' from search_law/get_law_history, and knd values are explained with their meanings. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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's purpose: comparing three-tier delegation and citation relationships among Korean law, enforcement decree, and enforcement regulation. It specifies the data source (lawService, target=thdCmp) and provides concrete examples like PIPA §29 to 시행령 §30. The tool is distinct from siblings as no other tool explicitly offers this three-tier comparison.

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 the two modes (knd=1 for citation, knd=2 for delegation) with default behavior. It gives a real-world example (PIPA safety measures) and suggests subsequent steps using get_law_text and get_admin_rule_text. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and what to do next.

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