get_annexes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with annex serial number, related law ID, and PDF link, and notes that PDF text extraction is only available in v1.1. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only list retrieval, this is adequate.

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 two sentences plus a short note on next steps. It is efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose and key details, using minimal words. It could be slightly more structured, but it is still concise.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the tool's purpose, parameter usage, response fields (annex serial number, related law ID, PDF link), and suggests follow-up tools. It does not cover error handling or pagination, but for a straightforward list retrieval, it is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for lawName (parent law) and explains the knd enum values (별표/서식/부칙별표/부칙서식/전체) beyond the schema's Korean names. However, it does not add significant new information beyond what is already in the schema descriptions.

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 a list of annexes and forms for a given law (법령 별표·서식 목록), including specific filtering by kind (별표/서식/부칙). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law_text (which retrieves the main text) and search_admin_rule (for administrative rules).

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 explains when to use this tool: for standard forms like processing policies and consent forms (처리방침·동의서 같은 표준양식이 별표·서식에 위치). It provides next steps (사용 get_law_text for context, search_admin_rule for administrative rule annexes), but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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