get_related_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits: no mention of read-only vs mutation, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are omitted (though display has a default). The description is entirely silent on behavior beyond the basic listing.

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 short (one phrase) but at the cost of clarity. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking essential information. Front-loading is irrelevant when no useful content exists.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in the knowledge base, how 'terms' relate to the inputs, or what the output looks like. The agent cannot confidently select or invoke this tool based on the current description.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (lawId, lawName, display, apiKey) with Korean labels and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, the description could explain how lawId and lawName interact (e.g., are they combined or alternative filters?), but it does not.

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 is a single vague phrase: 'List of laws related to terms.' It does not clarify whether 'terms' refers to legal terms or something else, nor does it explain how inputs lawId and lawName relate to the purpose. Context with sibling tools like get_legal_term_detail suggests possible overlap, but no differentiation is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools for retrieving laws, the agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this one.

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