get_precedent_text

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only names the action, providing no details on read-only nature, authentication (apiKey optional), rate limits, or response format. Fails to add any behavioral context.

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 (one sentence) but overly minimal. Lacks structure such as separators or categories. Could be tautological (tool name restated). Insufficient for a tool with many siblings.

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, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description does not explain return values, prerequisites (like using search_precedents first), or error conditions. Highly incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (id, caseName, apiKey). No extra constraints or examples.

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 the tool retrieves the full text of a precedent, using the Korean verb '조회' and resource '판례 전문'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_precedents (searching) and summarize_precedent (summarizing).

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 does not state that the 'id' must come from search_precedents, though the schema notes this. No exclusionary context or alternative mentions.

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