ordin_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context, such as the ability to choose response format (JSON/XML/HTML) and an 'oc' override that defaults to an environment variable. It doesn't elaborate on error cases or rate limits, but it adds value beyond 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 a clear purpose statement, argument explanations, return note, and examples. It is slightly verbose due to the inclusion of 'ctx' in the args list (which is auto-injected and not actually in the schema), but it remains efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers required inputs, response formats, and usage examples. It doesn't detail error responses or explain the 'oc' parameter in depth, but it provides enough information for basic invocation and is consistent with the annotations.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: id, mst, oc, and type, including default and possible values. Examples clarify usage. The 'oc' description is cryptic, but overall the description adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve local ordinance full text' with the Korean equivalent, using a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (local ordinance full text). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like ordin_search, which focus on finding ordinances rather than retrieving the full text.

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 specifies that either id or mst is required, implying the user already has an identifier and needs the full text. Examples show retrieval by ID or MST. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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