chain_document_review

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

The description discloses the chained behavior (risk analysis → law search → precedent search) and the output (risk, relevant laws, precedents). However, no annotations exist, and the description lacks details on safety (read-only?), authentication needs (apiKey is a param but not mentioned), rate limits, or side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences with clear structure and front-loaded key terms (emoji, chain description). Every part adds value without redundancy.

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 description explains the tool's purpose and chained process, which is useful for a complex tool. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on the return format or limitations (e.g., text length, timeout). The description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for advanced agent reasoning.

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 67% with text and maxClauses described; apiKey lacks description. The tool description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Given moderate coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 comprehensive document review with an automatic chain of risk analysis, law search, and precedent search. It specifies the use case for contract/terms review, distinguishing it from sibling chain tools like chain_action_basis or chain_law_system.

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 explicitly indicates usage for reviewing contracts/terms ('계약서/약관 검토 시'), providing clear context. However, it does not include explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the specificity implies proper usage.

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