get_kvkk_document_markdown

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'Returns paginated Markdown with metadata,' which informs about output format and pagination. Annotations cover read-only, non-open-world, and idempotent hints, but the description enhances this with practical details without contradicting 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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits (paginated Markdown with metadata). Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the core purpose and key output characteristics, and with annotations and schema handling safety and parameters, no significant gaps remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what is in the schema, such as examples or edge cases, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('retrieving') and resource ('full text of a KVKK data protection decision'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_kvkk_decisions' (which likely returns search results rather than full document content). It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 context for when to use this tool ('when retrieving full text of a KVKK data protection decision'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it implies usage for full-text retrieval versus search, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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