get_decision_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the 'full' parameter's effect (본문 계단식 축약) and the 18-domain scope, but does not disclose potential rate limits or error handling beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's main identity, then domain count, key parameters, and default behavior. The single sentence is efficient, though the Korean-English mix and shorthand ('계단식 축약') could be clearer for an English agent.

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's moderate complexity (4 params, nested objects), the description covers the essential lookup pattern. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the detailed input schema, but the description does not explain return structure or error cases, slightly reducing 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a bit of context about 'options' being domain-specific and examples for treaty/english_law, but largely repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '조회' (lookup) and resource 'Korean-law-mcp', and clearly states the tool retrieves full text for 18 domains. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_law' or 'get_law_text' by emphasizing the aggregated domain coverage and the 'full' parameter behavior.

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 with domain+id from search results, and notes the default 'full=false' behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_law_text' or 'search_decisions', leaving differentiation to the agent's inference.

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