list_legal_apis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's '조회합니다' is consistent with that. The description adds useful scope about the 14 categories and API targets, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior; this is acceptable 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the key domain scope is front-loaded. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool operates on.

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?

With no output schema and no explanation of return values, DAPA, or 'API target', the description leaves important context implicit. It also does not clarify how the optional category parameter affects the returned results, which is essential for a tool meant to list or filter API targets.

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 needed to explain the category parameter's meaning and behavior. It only mentions '14개 범주' without saying whether category is optional, what each enum value maps to, or how omitting it changes the result. The enum values themselves are left fully undocumented.

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 specifies a concrete retrieval action ('조회합니다') and a defined resource: 14 DAPA-related categories and the list/body API targets of the national legal information joint-use service. It is more specific than a mere restatement of the tool name, though 'API target' remains somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings like get_legal_detail, search_dapa_legal_catalog, or get_legal_api_body. An agent would have to infer its discovery/list role from context rather than from explicit instructions.

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