この条を引用している条文（逆引き）

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the depth semantics (depth=2 counts indirect influence) and the per-law grouping of results, which is real behavioral value. However it says nothing about truncation via max_laws, ordering, or error behavior for unresolvable law names — significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then use cases, then the depth caveat. No filler text. Dense but appropriate for a Japanese technical description of a multi-parameter lookup.

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 no annotations, the description must carry everything. It covers purpose, use cases, and depth semantics, and notes that results are grouped by law, but omits return shape, the effect of max_laws on completeness, and behavior for ambiguous law identifiers. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 60%: law, article, and include_same_law are documented in the schema, but depth and max_laws are not. The description compensates well for depth by explaining indirect influence, but max_laws (default 15, max 50) is explained nowhere, leaving a non-obvious result-limiting parameter undocumented. Slightly above baseline 3, not a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in the reverse direction ('指定した条...を引用・委任元として参照している他の条文を...返します') and even specifies output grouping ('法令ごとにまとめて返します'). The direction is clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from find_cited_provisions, but the sibling is never named explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 criterion.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use scenarios ('この条が改正されたら、どの法令のどの条に影響しうるか' / 'この規定を準用・引用している手続はどれか'), which is strong contextual guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it is not a 5.

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