get_nlrc_decision_text

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 states the tool retrieves full text, which is safe. But it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (apiKey is optional), error handling, or rate limits. Basic purpose is clear but lacks depth.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the category. No redundant information. Could be slightly more informative but 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 low complexity (simple retrieval) and complete schema parameter descriptions, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention that the id is obtained from search results (though schema does) or any output format. A more complete description would include common usage context.

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%, with both parameters documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how id is obtained or the role of apiKey. Baseline 3 applies as schema covers it.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the full text of a labor commission decision, clear from the category label [노동위]. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_acr_decision_text. However, the verb is not explicitly stated but implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function. No context for selection among many similar get_*_text tools.

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