get_constitutional_decision_text

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The tool appears to be a simple retrieval, but the agent cannot infer safety or side-effect profile.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema, the description minimally states it returns the full text. However, it does not describe the format or structure of the response. For a retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail beyond the schema, but the schema already explains each parameter adequately (id from search, caseName for verification, apiKey for authentication).

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 specifies that the tool retrieves the full text ('전문') of Constitutional Court decisions ('헌재 결정례'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_precedent_text or get_acr_decision_text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling get_*_text tools for different court bodies (e.g., ACR, appeal review, FTC), the description fails to indicate when to choose this one.

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