law_service

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: performance warnings ('full response can exceed 1MB'), parameter-specific behavior ('Using `jo` returns only the requested article'), and API constraints ('JSON not supported by API'). It doesn't contradict 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, important notes, args, returns, examples) and uses bold text for critical information. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Retrieve' in purpose), but overall it's efficient.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly, provides usage examples, and covers behavioral aspects. The main gap is lack of detail on return values beyond 'Full law content or specific article content', but this is mitigated by the examples showing actual usage.

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 9 parameters. It clarifies requirements ('either id or mst is required'), provides detailed formatting rules for 'jo' with examples, explains defaults ('defaults to env var' for 'oc'), and specifies allowed values for 'lang' and 'type'. This adds significant 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 full law content by announcement date' and 'Retrieves the complete text of a law organized by announcement (publication) date.' It specifies both the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('law content'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'law_search' by focusing on full content 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 explicit guidance on when to use specific parameters: 'IMPORTANT: For specific article queries (e.g., "제174조"), ALWAYS use the `jo` parameter.' It also warns against full retrieval for large laws and recommends article-specific queries for speed and cleaner responses, offering clear alternatives within the same tool.

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