get_interpretation_text

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that long reasons are automatically abbreviated ('긴 이유는 자동 축약') and extracts specific fields. This adds behavioral context beyond basic function.

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?

Description is concise, front-loads core purpose, and includes usage guidance and sibling references in a well-structured manner.

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?

No output schema, but description lists output components and mentions auto-summarization of long reasons. It provides sufficient context for effective use, though response format and error handling are not covered.

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% with a clear parameter description. Tool description repeats the schema info but adds context that ID comes from search_interpretations results, which is helpful but not additional semantic depth.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full text of statutory interpretation cases, listing specific components (subject, query, reply, reasons). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools like search_interpretations and get_law_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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenario: 'when there is doubt about PIPA provision application, directly check official interpretations.' Also suggests alternatives: search_interpretations for similar cases and get_law_text for cited provisions.

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