eflaw_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it warns that some laws produce responses over 1MB, explains that `jo` returns only the requested article for speed and cleanliness, and describes the return types (full law content or specific article content). This goes well beyond annotation data.

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 opening summary, an 'IMPORTANT' callout, numbered Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence serves a purpose—no fluff. The strong warning is front-loaded to prevent misuse, and the examples make the usage instantly understandable.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers invocation requirements (id or mst required, ef_yd with mst), the crucial `jo` encoding, response formats (JSON/XML/HTML), and includes examples that demonstrate both recommended and cautionary usage. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates thoroughly. It documents every parameter (id, mst, ef_yd, jo, chr_cls_cd, oc, type) with clear meaning, provides the exact `jo` format (zero-padded article number plus branch suffix), and gives concrete examples like '017400' for 제174조. This is far more informative than the raw 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 clearly states 'Retrieve full law content by effective date' and further explains it returns the complete text of a law. It distinguishes itself from search-oriented siblings by focusing on retrieval, and the mention of specific article retrieval via the `jo` parameter adds specificity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'For specific article queries, ALWAYS use the `jo` parameter' and warns about large responses. It also clarifies the id/mst requirement and gives examples of recommended vs. warning-prone usage, effectively telling when to use full retrieval vs. article-specific retrieval.

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