get_law_abbreviations

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

Description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The filtering behavior is implied but not explained.

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?

Description is very short (one sentence plus parenthetical) and front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet-like).

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 large number of sibling tools (100+), the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's context or distinguish it. No output schema, so return format is unknown. Missing details on what 'law abbreviations' are and how the list is structured.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds that stdDt/endDt enable period filtering, reinforcing the schema but not adding new semantics beyond repetition. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a full list of law abbreviations and can filter by date range. Verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '법령 약칭 전체 목록' (full list of law abbreviations) are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar list-retrieving siblings like 'get_alio_statistics' or 'get_law_system_tree'.

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 other list or search tools. No explicit context for when to apply date filtering or the typical use case. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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