get_pipc_decision_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states only that the tool returns the full text, but does not mention whether authentication (apiKey) is required, if it is read-only, or any limitations. The safe, read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 extremely concise at one line. It is front-loaded with the source identifier. However, it is too brief and lacks nearly all context. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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 many sibling decision text tools and the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure and relationship to search tools. It does not. The description is incomplete for a tool with multiple similar siblings.

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?

The schema already covers parameter descriptions fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; no value added nor needed.

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 '개인정보위 결정문 전문' clearly indicates the tool retrieves the full text of PIPC decisions. The name 'get_pipc_decision_text' reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_*_decision_text' tools by specifying the source (PIPC). However, it does not explicitly state what PIPC stands for, which could be ambiguous to non-Korean users.

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 like 'search_pipc_decisions' or other decision text tools. The parameter description for 'id' in the schema suggests it comes from search results, but this is not in the tool description itself. No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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