prec_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are reinforced by the description. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the 'sections' parameter controls response size, with 'summary' excluding the large '판례내용' field (~15-25KB), and the default returns everything. It also mentions response types (JSON, XML, HTML). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining size implications and defaults.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise, with no redundant sentences. The examples demonstrate both default and recommended usage. The essential information (parameter meanings, size limits, format options) is packed efficiently into a compact block.

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 tool's simplicity (retrieve full text by ID), the description is nearly complete. It covers parameters, defaults, and even provides a practical size guideline. The return value is only described as 'Full precedent text with details or error,' but the 'sections' parameter partially outlines the response structure. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response format could be helpful, but the tool's context is well-served as-is.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains 'id' as a sequence number, 'sections' with specific values and size implications, 'type' formats, and 'oc' as an optional override. The description adds meaning for most parameters, though 'oc' is minimally explained ('Optional OC override') and 'lm' is self-explanatory. Overall, it compensates well for the lack of schema 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 court precedent full text (판례 본문 조회).' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling search tools like prec_search, which likely handles queries rather than direct retrieval. The name 'prec_service' aligns with this purpose.

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 practical usage context, such as recommending the 'summary' sections for PlayMCP to stay under 20KB limits, and indicates that 'full' is the default. It also provides examples of usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative service tools (e.g., law_service), or when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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