chain_ordinance_compare

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It hints at a processing pipeline (upper law → delegation → nationwide search) but does not disclose key behaviors: whether the tool is read-only, requires an API key, what side effects exist, or the structure of the output. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single line plus a tag. It front-loads the purpose with an emoji and Korean text. While brevity is appreciated, some behavioral details could be added without sacrificing structure.

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 complexity of a comparative ordinance chain tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the comparison result looks like, how delegation hierarchy is used, or how to interpret the output. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds minor value by noting 'parentLaw' auto-searches when unspecified. However, the core parameter 'query' is described only as 'keyword' without explaining how it influences the comparison. The apiKey parameter lacks any description.

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 indicates a tool for comparing ordinances, with a structured approach starting from upper legislation. It specifies the domain (autonomous law) and the function (nationwide search and comparison). However, it could more precisely define what 'comparison' entails (e.g., side-by-side or difference highlighting).

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 mentions 'for autonomous law questions,' providing context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like search_ordinance or compare_articles. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and context.

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