get_dapa_legal_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the mapping behavior from DAPA catalog ID to national legal document, but it does not disclose error behavior, availability limits, or output characteristics beyond 'actual body text.'

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?

A single, front-loaded Korean sentence states the input, the linking action, and the return object with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the core call semantics are present: supply a DAPA catalog ID and receive the legal body text. However, the lack of sibling-differentiation guidance and any note on output format or errors leaves a moderate gap for an agent choosing among many similar legal-content tools.

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 only defines 'id' as a required string with no description, so the tool description carries the burden; it usefully identifies the parameter as a DAPA catalog ID and explains its role in resolving the legal document. It stops short of providing a format, example, or accepted identifier pattern, which would add more value.

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 ('조회합니다') and identifies the resource: it connects a DAPA catalog ID to a national legal information document and retrieves the actual body text. '실제 본문' signals that this is a content-fetching tool rather than a catalog or search tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 implies a use case (you have a DAPA catalog ID and need the legal body text) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as get_legal_api_body, search_legal_content, and get_dapa_legal_catalog_item, the agent is not given criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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