get_annexes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool extracts content from appendices and mentions that amounts/standards are often found there, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose and usage tip.

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?

The description does not explain the output format or structure, which is a gap given no output schema. It could be more complete about what 'content extraction' returns (e.g., plain text, structured data).

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by showing a usage pattern (lawName+'별표N') and hinting that lawName can include appendix number directly, which is not in 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 clearly states the tool retrieves appendices and forms (별표/서식) from Korean law, using lawName combined with appendix number. This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from siblings like search_law or get_law_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?

It provides a usage hint (combine lawName with appendix number) and notes that amounts/standards are often in appendices, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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