get_annexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows it's safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by noting that the tool extracts content from annexes and that amounts/standards are often there, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 short (2 sentences) but mixes Korean and English, which may reduce clarity for non-Korean-speaking agents. The second sentence is redundant with the first. It could be more concise and front-loaded with a clear English statement.

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, and moderate complexity, the description is somewhat complete for basic usage but lacks explanation of return values, error handling, or how to specify annexes precisely. The schema covers parameters, but the description could include more about the output format.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'bylSeq' for downloading a specific file, 'annexNo' as alternative), but mostly restates the enum values for knd. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states this tool retrieves Korean law annexes (별표/서식) by law name, with a specific format 'lawName+'별표N''. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law or get_law_text by focusing on annexes, but the purpose is somewhat obscured by the Korean text and lack of explicit English summary.

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 gives some context on when to use (to extract amounts/standards often in annexes) and hints at specifying annexes with '별표N' in lawName, but it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like get_law_text or explain when not to use this tool. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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