この条が引用・委任している先

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the output shape (results grouped per law) and the two citation kinds covered (引用 and 委任), which is useful. It says nothing about the max_laws cap, truncation, ordering, or whether missing references are reported, leaving behavioral gaps for a lookup tool with no annotation coverage.

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 compact sentences: the first is the capability statement with scope front-loaded, the second is the usage cue. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and why you would call it, which is the essential core. It omits the behavior of max_laws and any truncation/limit semantics, so an agent can invoke it but cannot predict result volume.

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 67%: law and article are documented in the schema, and the description's '法令ごとにまとめて' reinforces the law grouping. max_laws is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description never mentions any limit on returned laws, so it does not compensate for the gap. 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?

Specific verb (返します) plus the resource and scope: other articles cited in the body of the given article and delegated cabinet/ministerial ordinances, grouped by law. The outgoing direction of the citation relationship is unambiguous, which implicitly separates it from the mirror sibling find_citing_provisions, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case: follow reference destinations while reading a provision. That is clear context for selection, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' or naming of alternatives such as find_citing_provisions or get_article.

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