get_audit_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that include_pdf_text defaults to true and extracts the actual finding reason and judgment basis from attached PDFs. However, it does not mention potential performance implications, the return structure, or behavior when include_pdf_text is false.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second clarifies the key optional parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 detail-lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the notable PDF extraction option. It falls short of explaining the response format or cautioning about potentially large PDF text outputs, but it is adequate for an agent to make an initial call.

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 input schema already has descriptive text for both parameters, including the default value and purpose of include_pdf_text. The description's second sentence merely restates the schema's information without adding new semantic detail, so it adds no value 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 uses the specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and identifies the resource as '심사·감리지적사례 상세' (audit/review finding case details), clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_audit_case. The mention of PDF text extraction further clarifies its 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 implies usage for retrieving a specific audit case detail, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as search_audit_case or get_qna. The schema's parameter description for ntt_id hints at the prerequisite search, but the tool description itself offers no usage guidance or exclusions.

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