get_sanction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by disclosing that include_pdf_text=true extracts actual violation facts and sanction amounts from attached PDFs, and it provides a critical semantic warning about not translating the content into strong conviction language. However, it does not describe the return format, errors, or permissions.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the optional PDF extraction, and the third delivers an important usage warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It describes the detail query and the extra PDF-extracted information, but it does not specify the overall return structure or metadata fields. The warning about language nuance is helpful, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the response.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of value by clarifying the default of include_pdf_text and reiterating what it extracts, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the required parameters.

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 sanction disclosure details ('제재공시 상세를 조회합니다'), using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_sanction tool by focusing on '상세' (details), but does not explicitly name the alternative or differentiate beyond that.

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 usage context through the include_pdf_text parameter, noting the default behavior and that PDF text extraction is optional. The input schema parameters clearly reference search_sanction results, indicating this tool is meant to be used after search_sanction, but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives.

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