get_annexes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'extract content', amounts/standards likely in annexes) but does not reveal additional traits like rate limits or authorization. No contradiction 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, but good annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the main purpose and gives a usage pattern, but does not describe the return format, distinguish between knd values, or clarify the difference between bylSeq and annexNo. The schema covers those details, but additional context would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a usage pattern: 'lawName+'별표N'으로 내용 추출' and notes that lawName can be combined with annex numbers. This gives meaningful context for parameter interaction, raising the score above baseline.

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 function: '별표/서식 조회' (annex/form inquiry) and extracting content with lawName+'별표N'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_law_text by focusing on annexes, though the differentiation is not explicit. The hint about amounts/standards being in annexes adds context.

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 (e.g., when amounts/standards are needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_law_text or search_law. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The guidance is implied but not direct.

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