get_daily_term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a simple read search but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs (apiKey parameter), rate limits, or failure modes. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 Korean sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No wasted words; highly front-loaded and 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 lack of output schema and the presence of pagination parameters (display, page), the description does not mention return format or result behavior. It covers the basic workflow but is not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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%; all 4 parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not repeat parameter info, which is fine.

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 it searches everyday terms (e.g., '월세', '뺑소니') to find corresponding legal terms. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_legal_to_daily or get_legal_term_detail.

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 when to use the tool (when you have an everyday term needing a legal equivalent), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or reference alternatives. Given the large sibling list, explicit exclusions would improve clarity.

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