get_legal_detail

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is a detail retrieval for official documents but does not explain error handling, missing-document behavior, or whether sourceType must match the search result. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentence with the key precondition front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately minimal while still conveying the core behavior and input origin.

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 tool is simple and annotations cover safety, but the required sourceType parameter is effectively unexplained in both schema and description, and no output shape is described. An agent could likely attempt the call, but the description leaves enough inferential gaps that correct invocation is not fully guaranteed.

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 description adds useful meaning to documentId by tying it to search_legal's result, though this largely echoes the schema's '검색 결과의 documentId'. sourceType has only enum values and no described semantics or relation to documentId, and with 50% schema coverage the description does not fully compensate for that gap.

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 verb ('조회합니다' – retrieves), the resource ('공식 문서 상세' – official document detail), and the input source ('search_legal에서 받은 documentId'). This makes it distinguishable from sibling content/list tools by anchoring it to search_legal's output.

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?

It provides a clear precondition: the documentId must come from search_legal, which tells the agent the appropriate calling sequence. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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