decc_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that JSON format is not supported by the API (only HTML/XML), mentions automatic injection of context parameter, and describes what content is included in the return (case details, disposition, summary, reasoning).

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 purpose statement, content details, parameter explanations, return description, and examples. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The bilingual approach (Korean/English) is efficient for clarity without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (full text with details) though without an output schema. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling tool differentiation, but otherwise covers purpose, usage, parameters, and constraints adequately.

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 4 parameters: 'id' as required decision sequence number, 'lm' as optional decision name, 'oc' as optional override with default behavior, and 'type' as format selection with default and constraints. The examples demonstrate practical usage with both required and optional parameters.

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 with specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('administrative appeal decisions'), including Korean terminology. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'decc_search' by focusing on full text retrieval 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 for when to use this tool (retrieving complete decision text) and includes examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'decc_search' for finding decisions versus retrieving them.

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