get_regulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is a read operation ('조회') and that it returns the full text, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, output format, or any permission requirements. For a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides essential usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and the required input source, which is largely sufficient. The missing return field details are not critical for a 'get full text' tool, and the sibling context is handled by the 'full text' wording. It falls just short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly describe the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already explains that the id is the SEQ_HISTORY ID from search_regulations or list_regulations. The tool description repeats this same information, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed it.

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 ('특정 규정의 전문을 조회합니다' – retrieves the full text of a specific regulation) and identifies the resource as a specific regulation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_regulations/list_regulations (which find regulations) and get_regulation_article (which likely retrieves a single article) by emphasizing '전문' (full text).

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 explicitly tells the agent to use an id (SEQ_HISTORY) obtained from search_regulations or list_regulations, providing clear prerequisite context for when this tool should be invoked. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_regulation_article, but the 'full text' phrasing implies the difference, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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