get_legal_term_kb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that homonyms and term relationships are included, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (only hinted via the apiKey parameter), rate limits, or what the search returns. The description is minimal and does not sufficiently inform the agent of behavior beyond the basic operation.

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?

Extremely concise at two short phrases. The purpose is front-loaded with '[지식베이스] 법령용어 검색' clearly stating the action and object. Every word provides value, and no unnecessary information is included.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete regarding purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or handling of apiKey. It mentions homonyms and relationships, which adds context, but the overall completeness could be improved for a search tool with multiple 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 searches legal terms from a knowledge base and specifically includes homonyms and term relationships. The verb '검색' (search) combined with '법령용어' (legal terms) specifies the resource, and the addition of '동음이의어·용어관계 포함' (includes homonyms and term relationships) differentiates it from sibling search tools like 'search_legal_terms'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The name implies it's for the legal knowledge base, and the presence of sibling tools like 'search_legal_terms' suggests differentiation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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