law_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool includes provisions but does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, required permissions, or any side effects. As a simple lookup, the disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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 (two sentences) with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the second sentence is a note on the parameter that could be placed in the schema, but it does not harm conciseness.

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 a description that only says 'details including provisions', the agent lacks information about what fields are returned, pagination, or error states. Given the complexity of law data, this is incomplete.

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 must compensate. The phrase 'law_id=법령ID' adds basic meaning but does not explain the format, length, or origin of the law_id. This is insufficient for clear parameter understanding.

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 states '법령 상세(조문 포함)', meaning 'law details (including provisions)', which clearly indicates the tool returns detailed information about a law and its articles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'law_search' (which likely lists laws) and 'precedent_detail' (which deals with precedents). The purpose is clear but could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 24 sibling tools, the lack of context on when to choose 'law_detail' over, for example, 'law_search' or 'precedent_detail' leaves the agent without sufficient decision-making information.

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