eflaw_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it warns about potential large responses (exceeding 1MB), performance implications ('much faster and cleaner' with jo parameter), and API limitations (JSON not supported). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, important note, args, returns, examples), uses bold for critical information, and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters and important usage considerations.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive context: it explains all parameters, includes critical warnings about response size, provides format examples, clarifies API limitations, and gives practical usage examples. This is complete enough for effective tool invocation.

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 detailed explanations for all 7 parameters: clarifies requirements (id or mst required, ef_yd required with mst), format specifics (jo parameter format with examples), defaults (chr_cls_cd, type), and purpose of each parameter. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 specific action ('retrieve full law content by effective date') and resource ('law content'), with the Korean title providing additional context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'eflaw_search' (which likely searches) and 'eflaw_josub' (which may handle article subdivisions).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it strongly recommends using the 'jo' parameter for specific article queries to avoid large responses, and warns against full retrievals for laws with many articles. This directly addresses when to use specific features of this tool.

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