공식 원문 문맥 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral caveats: the result is not official approval/legal judgment, and missing provenance prevents confirming observation and authorship. This goes beyond the schema and offers useful transparency.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise caveats that earn their place. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage condition, and key limitations. There are no significant gaps; return values are handled by the output schema.

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. It explicitly mentions chunkId and ties it to search results, adding meaning to the bare string type. It could explain where chunkId originates, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieve the full original source context for a search result using a chunkId. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on source text retrieval rather than validation, explanation, or field listing.

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 a clear usage condition: 'when full context of the original text from search results is needed.' It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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