get_law_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the behavioral difference between calling with article (returns full text) and without (returns table of contents), and warns about full_text length. However, it does not specify response format, error handling, or what happens with invalid mst/article values.

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 relatively concise, with two paragraphs that front-load the purpose and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, though the second paragraph is dense with multi-line instructions. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points.

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 absence of an output schema and no annotation, the description lacks details on the return structure (e.g., fields, format). It adequately covers usage patterns and parameter meanings, but the agent may need to infer response format or error behavior, leaving some incompleteness.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining mst (law serial number from search_laws), article (specific article number or empty for table of contents), and full_text (set true only if all articles needed). It adds meaning beyond the parameter names and defaults.

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 retrieves law articles (법령의 조문) and explicitly links to search_laws via the mst parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_laws, get_admin_rule_text, and get_guideline_text by specifying its unique role in fetching article-level content.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage: first use search_laws to get mst, then call get_law_text without article to get the table of contents, then re-query with a specific article. It advises against using full_text=True unnecessarily, offering clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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