find_regulations_by_upper_law

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Merely states 'reverse search' without explicitly confirming read-only nature or disclosing potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with [ALIO] tag and core purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters all described. No output schema, but as a search tool, return format is somewhat implied. Combined with schema, description is adequate for basic usage, though lacks detail on output structure.

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 100% with clear Korean descriptions for each parameter (e.g., lawName, article, institutions, matchMode, maxResults). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it performs reverse search for ALIO public institution regulations based on a higher law name, with optional article filter. It distinguishes from siblings like search_alio_regulation_text by focusing on reverse lookup.

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?

Implied usage for reverse searching regulations by upper law, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_alio_regulation_text, list_alio_regulations). No when-not-to-use or exclusions.

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