get_law_text

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

The description claims mst and lawId are '필수' (required), but the input schema lists no required parameters, creating a direct contradiction with the schema. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds no behavioral context beyond this misleading requirement.

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 concise (one short sentence), which is positive, but it omits important details and includes a false claim about required fields. It could be restructured to front-load purpose more clearly while avoiding contradictions.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns beyond 'full text of a clause.' It does not mention return format, pagination, error handling, or behavior when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds misleading information by stating mst/lawId are required (contradicting the schema), and it does not explain the purpose of efYd. It adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides, and the incorrect requirement degrades usefulness.

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 is for retrieving the full text of a law clause (조문 전문 조회) and specifies that mst or lawId is required, with jo for specific clauses. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like search_law or get_annexes.

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 indicates that mst or lawId is required and that jo can be used for a specific clause, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_law (for finding laws) or get_annexes (for annexes). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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