get_law_statistics

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

No annotations exist; the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like ordering of 'TOP N' (e.g., recency or number of amendments), read-only nature, rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with a category prefix. It is concise but could be slightly more informative about ordering without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and a simple description, important details are missing: what defines 'TOP N' (e.g., recency vs. number of amendments), output structure, and differentiation from overlapping sibling tools. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning, merely confirming '지정 기간(일)' for days. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (조회 - view), resource (법령 - laws), and scope (최근 개정 TOP N - recent amendments top N), distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_recent_alio_revisions by focusing on statistics and top N results.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_alio_statistics or get_recent_alio_revisions. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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