get_ordinance

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves full text but omits whether it is read-only, permission requirements, error handling for invalid ordinSeq, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function, though it lacks additional behavioral or usage details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, coverage of the full text, or potential limitations. For a simple retrieval tool, more contextual information (e.g., what '전문' includes) would be beneficial.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the full text of autonomous laws (ordinances/rules) using a specific verb '조회' (inquiry/retrieve) and resource '자치법규' with detail '전문' (full text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_ordinance' by focusing on retrieval by serial number.

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 tool versus alternatives such as 'search_ordinance' or 'get_linked_ordinances'. The description implies usage when the ordinSeq is known, but does not state exclusions or conditions.

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