decc_service

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the 'sections' parameter controls whether reasoning is excluded, the summary mode returns specific fields (사건명, 청구취지, 재결요지, 주문), and the 'type' parameter selects response format. It also mentions error returns. This goes beyond annotation basics.

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 well-structured with an intro, args list, returns, and examples. It is moderately sized but every part adds value, including the Korean title and two usage examples that demonstrate both minimal and more complex calls.

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 lack of an output schema and five parameters, the description is quite complete: it explains what is returned, the effect of sections, response formats, and optional overrides. The only minor gap is not explaining how to obtain an ID if it is unknown, but for a service tool this is sufficient.

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 fully explains every parameter (id, lm, sections, oc, type, ctx) with values, defaults, and behavior. The sections parameter is especially well documented, listing both modes and the fields returned in summary mode.

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 the full text of Korean administrative appeal decisions, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search tools like decc_search by focusing on full-text service rather than searching.

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 through examples: retrieve by ID or with an optional case name. It hints at when to use this tool (when you have a decision sequence number) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like decc_search or admrul_service. Could be improved by stating 'use decc_search to find IDs first.'

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