get_legal_api_body

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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description usefully adds implementation behavior beyond that: multiple underlying body APIs may be auto-invoked, and attachment/form bodies are obtained by downloading and text-extracting specific file formats. It does not cover failure/error or rate-limit behavior, but that is a minor gap for a read-only convenience wrapper.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences accomplish the entire description: the primary behavior first, then the special attachment/form extraction path. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description is complete enough for recognizing the tool's role, and the annotations cover safety. But with nine parameters, a large apiId enum, and no output schema, it does not specify return structure or which parameters are required for particular apiId categories, and it does not route the agent away from sibling body/detail 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?

Schema description coverage is only 44%, and the description partially compensates by explaining that apiId refers to a list API and attachmentUrl is the official file/PDF link used for file extraction. However, it leaves page/limit/query/documentId mapping implicit, referring only to a vague 'result identifier', so it does not fully make up for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 operation: automatically call the corresponding body API using a list apiId and a result identifier, and for attachment/form results download the official file link and extract text from HWP/HWPX/PDF/XLSX/DOCX. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast itself with query_legal_api/get_legal_detail, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended context is implied: use it when you already have a list apiId and a result identifier and need the full body, or when you need attachment/form text from an official file link. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools.

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