get_admin_rule_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not explicitly state its safety, side effects, or access requirements. The description is adequate but lacks explicit disclosure of non-destructive behavior.

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 with two sentences plus a note, no superfluous words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides relevant 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains usage context and parameter correctly but does not describe the output format (text/structured) or any limits. Slightly incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 input schema fully describes the mst parameter (coverage 100%), and the description adds critical context: it explains the value's origin (search_admin_rule result) and warns against confusing it with a shorter admin rule ID, thus adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 administrative rules (행정규칙 본문 조회) and specifies the source (법제처 lawService · target=admrul). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing search_admin_rule for obtaining the required mst parameter and suggesting a subsequent tool for comparison.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use the mst from search_admin_rule results and warns that it differs from a shorter admin rule ID, preventing misuse. It also recommends next step compare_admin_rule_old_new, providing clear usage context.

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