prec_service

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the optional parameters and default response format ('XML'), which helps the agent understand how to invoke the tool effectively without contradicting 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, organized parameter explanations, return statement, and a practical example. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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: purpose, parameters, return expectation, and an example. It could improve by detailing error conditions or output structure, but it's largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates well by explaining all four parameters: 'id' as the required precedent sequence number, 'lm' as optional precedent name, 'oc' as optional override, and 'type' as response format with default 'XML'. 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'court precedent full text' with the Korean translation in parentheses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prec_search' by specifying it retrieves the full text rather than searching for precedents.

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 when full text of a precedent is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prec_search' or other service tools. The example shows basic usage but lacks context about prerequisites or comparisons.

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