research_official_notice

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive), it discloses real behavioral constraints: one-level depth only, a hard cap of three attachment candidates, possible excerpt truncation, and that it reports per-file failures and remaining links. This partial-failure and truncation behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is not in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the return contract and constraints appended. No filler or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return payload (sourceIds, per-file failures, remaining links) and the depth/truncation limits, which is strong. The remaining gap is the undocumented url parameter, which is the one thing an agent must supply correctly.

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 single 'url' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning, yet it only implies the target ('an official notice') without stating expected URL format, host, or whether it must point to a notice versus an attachment. The burden is not met.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (an official notice plus up to three directly linked attachment candidates), and specifies supported formats (HTML/PDF/HWP/HWPX). It stops short of naming the apparently related siblings (read_official_source, read_open_document), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear use context (returns sourceIds meant for build_research_brief) and an explicit boundary (does not search the web or infer facts). It does not state when to prefer this over the similar-sounding read_official_source or read_open_document siblings, so routing is partially inferred.

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