get_acr_special_appeal_text

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits (read-only, authentication, error handling, etc.). The apiKey parameter's purpose is not clarified.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with no wasted words. However, it is in Korean, which may limit understanding for non-Korean readers.

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?

Lacks information about return format, error behavior, and the tool's place in the workflow (e.g., requiring a prior search). Incomplete for an agent to use correctly without extra context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both id and apiKey, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (full text of special administrative appeal decisions) and implies retrieval. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_acr_decision_text, which likely retrieves a different type of decision.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor prerequisites such as needing to first obtain the id via search_acr_special_appeals. The input schema hints at this, but the description itself provides no usage context.

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