get_constitutional_decision_text

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auto-summarization for long texts and the data source, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or safe read-only hint. Partial transparency.

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 concise, with key info front-loaded: purpose, extracted fields, auto-summarization, and follow-up suggestions. Every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the ID source, and auto-summarization. Could mention formatting details but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema coverage. The schema already explains the ID source. The description adds minor context (source, auto-summarization) but not essential beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it extracts the full text of constitutional decisions, including case name, number, summary, etc. It also distinguishes from sibling search tools via '다음: search_constitutional_decisions로 유사 사건, intelligent_law_search로 인용 조문 검색.' The verb 'get' matches the tool name.

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 implies usage contexts (when full text is needed, auto-summarization for long texts) and suggests next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other get_ tools for different document types.

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