ordinance_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the specific behavioral logic (extracting cited statutes, comparing effective dates, flagging maintenance targets), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., how the analysis handles missing data, or whether it only works on Korean ordinances), so it provides partial value but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise (about three sentences) and front-loaded with a clear purpose. It avoids repeating schema details and each sentence contributes (purpose, target user, input requirement). It is slightly longer than necessary but not wasteful. The structure effectively communicates the essential information without padding.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the return value. It says results are 'automatically flagged' but does not describe the result format (e.g., a list of flagged statutes, a report, or a structured object). It also does not clarify what happens if both ordinSeq and ordinanceName are provided, or if neither is given, which are common edge cases. Given the complexity of the analysis, the description is incomplete in these respects.

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% — each parameter (id, query, ordinSeq, ordinanceName) has its own description. The description adds a rule beyond the schema: 'ordinSeq(또는 id)나 ordinanceName 중 하나 지정', clarifying that the agent must supply at least one of these two groups, which is not evident from the empty required array. This is a meaningful semantic addition that helps the agent understand how to combine the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('extracts', 'compares', 'flags') applied to a specific resource (ordinances' cited superior statutes), making it clear this is an analysis tool, not a search or retrieval tool. It uniquely combines extraction with date comparison and flagging, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_law or get_law_text. No ambiguity remains about the tool's function.

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 description provides clear context: it is for ordinance officers tracking superior law amendments and maintenance decisions. It also dictates the input requirement (one of ordinSeq/id or ordinanceName). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or point to specific alternative tools for other scenarios, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is clear but alternatives are not named.

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