admrul_service

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive operations. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the API doesn't support JSON format, mentions automatic context injection, and describes what's included in the return (content, addenda, annexes). No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, parameter explanations, return description, and examples. Every sentence adds value - no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 retrieval tool with good annotations and comprehensive parameter coverage in the description, this is quite complete. The main gap is no output schema, but the description explains what's returned. Could benefit from more explicit sibling tool differentiation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters: id (rule sequence number), lid (rule ID alternative), lm (rule name exact match), oc (OC override), type (response format with defaults and constraints). It clarifies relationships between id/lid/lm and provides format details not in 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's purpose: 'Retrieve administrative rule full text' and specifies it's for Korean administrative rules. It distinguishes from sibling tools like admrul_search by focusing on retrieving complete text rather than searching.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (retrieving complete text with content and annexes) and includes parameter guidance (id required if lid/lm not provided). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this vs. admrul_search or other search tools.

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