get_law_text

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says it queries full text, omitting any details about authentication (apiKey parameter), rate limits, or consequences of missing parameters. The mention of mst/lawId as 'required' contradicts the schema's empty required array, indicating inconsistency.

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 very short (one line), using brackets and Korean, which is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it lacks clear structure or English clarity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return format, content of full text, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity, more detail is needed for complete understanding.

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 adds minimal value by noting mst/lawId are required and jo for specific provisions, but does not elaborate on efYd or apiKey beyond the schema descriptions.

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 indicates it retrieves full text of law provisions ('조문 전문 조회') and specifies that mst/lawId are required and jo allows specific provisions. This differentiates it from search tools like search_law. However, the mention of required fields slightly contradicts the schema, reducing perfect clarity.

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 implicitly suggests using mst/lawId from search_law and optionally jo for specific provisions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_article_detail or get_historical_law. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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