get_law_text

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive. The description adds that mst or lawId are required (though schema marks none required), which is critical behavioral context. No contradictions detected.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. It wastes no words, though the Korean-English mix may slightly hinder clarity for non-Korean agents.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has 4 parameters, the description adequately explains purpose and key parameters, but omits return format or what 'full text' entails (e.g., structured sections, plain text). This is acceptable for read-only fetch.

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. The description mentions mst, lawId as required, and jo for specific articles, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., jo format examples).

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 the tool retrieves the full text ('조문 전문 조회') of a law article, and specifies that 'mst/lawId' are required despite the schema not marking them as required. It distinguishes by noting it can fetch a specific article using 'jo'.

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: use when needing the full text of a law or a specific article. It mentions that mst and lawId come from search_law, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives among siblings like get_decision_text.

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