get_annexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds contextual information about amounts/standards being in annexes, but does not disclose output format, pagination, or any specific behavioral details beyond the purpose.

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 brief (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured to separate usage guidance and hints.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between 'bylSeq' and 'annexNo', nor does it describe the output format or whether a single annex or multiple annexes are returned. The note about amounts/standards provides some context but insufficient for full completeness.

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 100%, with each parameter well-described. The description adds a usage example ('lawName+'별표N'') but does not provide new information beyond what the schema already offers for parameter semantics.

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 '별표/서식 조회' (annex/form inquiry) and mentions extracting content using lawName+'별표N', clearly indicating the tool retrieves annexes or forms for a given law. While it is in Korean, the purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like 'get_law_text' or 'search_law'.

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 a usage pattern (lawName+'별표N') and hints that amounts/standards are often in annexes, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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