get_case판례/해석례 본문 조회 — 판시사항·판결요지·참조조문(판례) 또는 질의요지·회답·이유(해석례).
응답의 `source_url`은 국가법령정보센터 원문 주소다 — 판례·해석례를 인용할 때는
**이 링크를 함께 제시하라**(감사·보고서에서 근거를 되짚을 수 있어야 한다).
Args:
kind: "prec" | "expc" (search_cases 결과의 kind)
case_id: search_cases 결과의 case_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| case_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the response includes a source_url pointing to the National Law Information Center and instructing that this link must be presented when citing cases. This is useful operational guidance not present in the structured fields.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool does, the second explains the citation requirement, and the Args list is minimal. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant prose.
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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, what kinds of content are included for each kind value, and how the source_url should be used. The citation instruction adds important downstream context. Combined with strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section does so by defining kind as 'prec' | 'expc' and linking both kind and case_id to values from search_cases results. This gives the parameters semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not elaborate further on possible values or constraints beyond that link.
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 uses a specific verb ('조회' / retrieve) and clearly identifies the resource: full-text of precedents/interpretations, including what content will be returned (판시사항, 판결요지, 참조조문 / 질의요지, 회답, 이유). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_cases, which presumably returns case metadata rather than full text.
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 explicitly ties its arguments to the output of search_cases ('search_cases 결과의 kind', 'search_cases 결과의 case_id'), providing clear context on when this tool is appropriate: after a case search, when the full text is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: calculation tools (check_price_adjustment, estimate_delay_penalty, decide_contract_method), reference tools (get_law_article, get_case), and search tools. The only potential confusion is between search_law and search_references since both cover statutes, but their descriptions explicitly delineate scope (statutes-only vs. statutes+guidelines+rulings).
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_price_adjustment, estimate_delay_penalty, get_law_article, search_cases). One outlier is delay_exemption_guide, which uses a noun-led pattern rather than a verb-led one, but it is still readable and consistent in style.
Eleven tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized legal advisory server. Each tool covers a distinct function: rule-based determinations, calculations, legal research, historical lookup, case retrieval, and issue reporting. No tool feels redundant or superfluous.
The toolset covers the core advisory workflow well: searching statutes, guidelines, and cases; retrieving full texts and historical versions; and performing key calculations for price adjustments and delay penalties. Minor gaps exist such as calculators for other contract lifecycle adjustments, but those are reasonably addressable through the search and reference tools.