get_law_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the requirement for mst/lawId and optional jo, but does not expand on behavioral details such as return format or response structure.

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 a concise single sentence covering purpose and key parameters. It is efficiently front-loaded but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating purpose from requirements).

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 tool's straightforward purpose (retrieve law text), the annotations cover safety, and the schema covers all parameters, the description provides sufficient context. No output schema exists, but return values are self-evident for a retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying that mst and lawId are essential (even though the schema marks no required fields), and jo is optional for filtering to a specific provision.

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 it retrieves the full text of legal provisions (조문 전문 조회), specifies that mst/lawId are required, and mentions optional filtering to a specific provision (jo). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_law (which searches laws) and get_decision_text (court decisions).

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 explicitly states that mst/lawId are required and jo is optional, implying usage after obtaining a law ID from search_law. However, it does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives guidance.

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