get_agency_interpretation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose notable traits: it states that recipient lists are omitted from the returned full text, and it explains the status/status_note semantics including what an absent status means. It does not cover error/not-found behavior, which is a minor gap for a read-only getter.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses clear Args/Returns blocks. The Returns list is long but every field name is informative; nothing is redundant boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (agency, doc_number, date, summary, full_text, related_laws, notes, status, attachments, source_url). Combined with the parameter source and omission notes, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result, though error handling is unaddressed.

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, and it does: it identifies the single parameter's origin (search_agency_interpretations output) and gives two concrete example id formats (moj:FE393340, mol:e:勞動條 3:1100130312). This is far more than the bare "string" schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (取得) and resource (單一行政函釋全文) and scopes it to a single document, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_agency_interpretations. It also discloses what is deliberately omitted (正本、副本受文者清單), so an agent knows the exact nature of the returned 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 Args section explicitly ties the call to search_agency_interpretations by telling the agent the id comes from that tool's return value, which effectively documents the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of stating any when-not-to-use conditions or naming other alternatives such as get_interpretation.

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