get_legal_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a read-like retrieval action and cursor-based pagination, but it omits critical behavioral context such as refresh semantics, what 'stored vs official' implies, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects of parameters like attachment or response_type.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good for conciseness. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than efficient completeness, leaving a lot of operational detail absent.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, this is a complex 13-parameter legal document retrieval tool with zero annotations and zero schema parameter descriptions. The single-sentence description is far from sufficient for an agent to know how to construct a correct call or interpret edge cases.

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?

The schema has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but barely does. The only hint is '절 단위 cursor', which loosely maps to section_cursor, while target, article, refresh, provider, document_id, effective_on, response_type, identifier_kind, source_category, and source_document_id remain completely unexplained.

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 ('조회한다' / retrieves) and names a concrete resource: stored documents or official full texts. It also adds the distinguishing mechanism of section-unit cursor pagination, which is enough to separate it from the sibling search/verification tools, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_legal_sources, get_applicable_law, or verify_legal_citations. The description states what the tool does but provides no context about intended scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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