elaw_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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that JSON format is 'not supported by API' (important implementation detail), mentions automatic injection of 'ctx' parameter, and indicates the tool returns either 'Full English law text with articles or error' (outcome transparency).

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, usage context, parameter explanations, return specification, and examples. Every sentence earns its place - no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with core purpose first, then details.

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 7-parameter retrieval tool with good annotations but no output schema, this description is complete: it covers purpose, usage context, all parameter semantics, behavioral constraints (format limitations), and provides examples. The combination with annotations provides full context for agent 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 fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters' semantics: it clarifies required/alternative relationships ('id required if mst not provided'), provides format details ('YYYYMMDD'), explains defaults ('defaults to env var'), specifies format options with constraints ('JSON not supported by API'), and notes automatic injection. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 the complete text of Korean laws translated to English' with specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('English law full text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'elaw_search' (likely searches metadata) by specifying it retrieves full text content.

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 usage context: 'Useful for international legal research and cross-border understanding.' It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the purpose differentiation implies usage scenarios.

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