mfds_get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate. The description adds context about the part parameter's role in saving context, but beyond that, no behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error handling) are provided.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the main purpose and follows with a key usage tip. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of a full output schema (not shown) and complete parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient for a straightforward tool. It clearly communicates the core action and a critical parameter nuance. It could be slightly improved by clarifying what 'meta' includes, but it is not necessary.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds semantic value by explaining the rationale behind the part parameter default ('컨텍스트 절약을 위해'), which helps an agent understand when to use 'meta' vs 'full'.

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 action (단일 문서 조회, i.e., view a single document) and the resource (문서). It is distinct from sibling tools like mfds_list_recent or mfds_extract_section, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for retrieving a single document and suggests using part='meta' to save context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria.

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