get_english_law_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output structure (chapter/article) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the tool's purpose.

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: two sentences providing purpose, structure, use cases, and sibling references. No redundant information.

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 is complete. It covers purpose, input semantics, output structure, usage context, and links to related tools.

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 'mst' with description in schema indicating it's a law serial number from search results and that 'ID' parameter doesn't work. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantics beyond that.

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 English law text (영문 법령 본문) from a specific source (법제처 lawService · target=elaw) and mentions the structure (chapter/article). It distinguishes from sibling tool get_law_text which returns Korean text.

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 explicitly states use cases (GDPR comparison, overseas reports/consulting) and suggests next steps: use get_law_text for Korean version and compare_articles for bilingual comparison. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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