get_annexes

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

No side effects or error behavior are described. Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description itself does not disclose potential failure modes or return characteristics. No contradiction exists with 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?

The description is very brief (two lines), so it is concise, but it lacks any structured breakdown (e.g., parameter explanation, usage examples). It is not verbose but may be considered under-structured for a tool with six parameters.

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 incomplete for a complex tool: it does not explain the full parameter set, the relationship between annexes and articles, or how to combine with other tools in the MCP. It only hints at one usage pattern, leaving much context undeclared.

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 tool description only mentions lawName and the pattern '별표N', ignoring the other five parameters. While the schema provides descriptions for each parameter, the description adds minimal value beyond that, failing to explain how parameters interact (e.g., jo vs annexNo).

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 tool's purpose: retrieving annexes (별표/서식) from Korean law, and notes that amounts/standards often reside there. This is specific and distinguishes it from general law text retrieval.

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?

Only a single usage hint is given ('lawName+'별표N'으로 내용 추출'), but no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_law_text, nor how to leverage the other parameters (jo, knd, query, bylSeq, annexNo). Examples are absent.

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