read_legal_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does excellent work: it discloses automatic reference resolution appending content, fallback handling for outdated IDs ('ID -> MST -> Detc'), and the markdown return format. These behavioral traits are not evident from the schema or annotations, adding substantial transparency.

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 clear sections (Args, Features, Return), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and notable behavioral nuances, without being verbose or repetitive.

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 tool with a single parameter and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the exact purpose, parameter format and source, behavioral features, and return output. The sibling context suggests a workflow where this tool logically follows a search, and the description supports that. The presence of an output schema is a bonus but not needed here since the description already explains the return format.

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 schema only defines resource_id as a string with no description (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining the required 'type:id' format with examples, and explicitly states the ID is sourced from search_korean_law output. This adds essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Reads the full content of a specific legal resource using its Typed ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling search tools by specifying a resource retrieval action rather than a search. The mention of 'statutes, precedents, or rules' further clarifies the resource scope.

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 provides clear context by stating that the resource_id is obtained from 'search_korean_law' output, telling the agent when this tool fits in a workflow. It also highlights 'saving extra round-trips' as a benefit, implying use when you need full content and resolved references. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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