get_taxlaw_interpretation_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions internal use of get_taxlaw_document_text, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like safety, needed permissions, or idempotency. The description is too terse to be transparent.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks essential details. It front-loads purpose and usage, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and behavior descriptions. It is not optimally structured for completeness given the tool's 0% schema coverage.

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 no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is insufficient. It provides purpose and usage guidelines but omits parameter semantics, return value description, and detailed behavior. The tool is not fully described for an agent to use correctly without further context.

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%, yet the description does not mention the parameters (id, full) at all. It fails to explain what values are expected for id or the effect of the full flag, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the 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 the tool retrieves detailed tax law interpretation cases/inquiry responses ('세법해석례/질의회신 상세 조회'), and explicitly marks itself as backward-compatible ('하위호환용'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_taxlaw_document_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 explicitly states this tool is for backward compatibility and internally uses get_taxlaw_document_text, indicating to agents that newer code should prefer the latter. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and exclusion of alternatives.

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