chain_procedure_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the automatic chaining behavior ('자동 연쇄') and steps (law->comparison->forms), but does not mention limitations, side effects, or failure modes. Adequate but not thorough.

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 a single concise sentence in Korean, front-loaded with a bracket identifier. It avoids unnecessary words, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) is acceptable for brevity.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how many steps the chain involves, or any prerequisites. The user would need to infer the output format from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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 description for 'query' is detailed with examples, but 'apiKey' has no description. Overall schema coverage is 50%, and the description adds context for the query parameter but does not compensate for the missing apiKey documentation. The examples help but cover only half the parameters.

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 it is a chain tool for procedure/cost, linking law to comparison to forms. The Korean text specifies the domain and chaining behavior, distinguishing it from other chain tools by focusing on procedures and costs.

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 implies usage when there are application/procedure questions, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling chain tools. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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