detc_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context about what gets returned ('Full Constitutional Court decision text or error') and includes an example showing minimal required parameters, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and efficiently conveys necessary information. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. The bilingual terminology could be slightly condensed but doesn't significantly impact conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, parameter explanations, return information, and an example. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools, but otherwise it's complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides clear explanations for all 4 parameters: 'id' as the decision sequence number, 'lm' as optional decision name, 'oc' as optional override, and 'type' specifying response format with default value. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Constitutional Court decision full text'), including both English and Korean terminology. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'detc_search' (which likely searches for decisions) by focusing on retrieving full text of a specific decision identified by ID.

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 implies usage context through the example (retrieving a specific decision by ID) and parameter descriptions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detc_search' or other *_service tools. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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