get_admin_appeal_text

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

Discloses automatic abbreviation of long reasons, a key behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies the source (lawService, target=decc) and extraction fields, but does not mention error handling or permissions, which is partially acceptable for a read-only tool.

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?

Single sentence packed with purpose, extraction details, behavior, and usage guidance. Every part is useful; no redundancy. The structure front-loads the main function and ends with actionable next steps.

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 tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains what is extracted (specific fields) and mentions abbreviation behavior. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., JSON keys) or whether the full text is returned. Still, it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 only parameter 'id' has a clear description in both schema and tool description. The description adds context: that the ID is a serial number from search_admin_appeals results, which is beyond the schema's description. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the added context justifies a 4.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool extracts administrative appeals adjudication text with specific fields (case name, adjudication agency, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning search_admin_appeals and get_pipc_decision_text as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context (extracting adjudication details) and explicitly lists alternatives: search_admin_appeals for similar cases, get_pipc_decision_text for PIPC decisions. The phrase '다음: (next:)' offers direct usage guidance.

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