get_legal_interpretation

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return structure (success, ty, id, doc_type, title, full_text, url, cached, timestamp) and explains ty codes. It indicates a read operation and does not hide any behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a usage instruction, a formatted code mapping, and explicit Args/Returns sections. No extra words.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, and return fields. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining that ty and doc_id come from search results and providing a complete translation table for ty codes.

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 explicitly states '取得司法院法令判解系統單筆全文' (Get a single full text from the Judicial Yuan law interpretation system), clearly indicating the tool's function as a retrieval tool for a single item. It also specifies the prerequisite of using search_legal_interpretations, distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools.

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 clearly instructs to use parameters from search_legal_interpretations results, providing explicit when-to-use context. It also includes a mapping of ty codes, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it.

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