elaw_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that, such as the 'oc' parameter defaulting to an environment variable, the 'type' response format options (JSON/XML/HTML), and the dependency rules for id/mst. It also describes the return value as 'Full English law text with articles or error.' These additions provide meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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, argument list, return statement, and examples. It is moderately long but every section adds value, including the concrete examples. The organization makes it easy to scan, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description must be self-contained. It covers all parameters, return behavior, parameter dependencies, and provides two realistic examples. This gives an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter (id, mst, lm, ld, ln, oc, type) with meaningful descriptions and constraints, such as 'required if mst not provided' and 'alternative search method.' Examples further clarify usage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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's function: 'Retrieve English law full text' and specifies it retrieves 'the complete text of Korean laws translated to English.' This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eflaw_service or law_service, so it does not achieve a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Useful for international legal research and cross-border understanding.' It also explains input dependencies (id required if mst not provided, etc.) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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