get_public_institution_rule_text

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'inquiry,' but fails to mention that it is read-only, whether authentication is required (apiKey is optional), or any rate limits. The description adds no 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?

The description is very concise at one short sentence. However, it is solely in Korean, which may reduce clarity for non-Korean speakers. Still, it is front-loaded with the category and purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention return format (e.g., plain text, JSON) or any additional output details. For a simple retrieval tool, more completeness is expected.

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 does not add any additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. No extra formatting or usage examples are given.

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 states it retrieves the text of public institution regulations, which is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_public_corp_rule_text or get_school_rule_text, relying on the name for distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context. The id parameter is implied to be from search results but not stated in the description.

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