read_legal_resource

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains Reference Resolution (auto-appending referenced law content) and Robustness (fallbacks for outdated IDs). It also states the return format is Markdown with metadata, body, and resolved references. This provides good transparency beyond the input schema.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then organizes additional details into bullet points for Features and Return. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition or unnecessary content.

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 the tool's complexity (full text retrieval with reference resolution and fallback logic) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: ID format, source of ID, feature highlights, and return format. It could be slightly more explicit about the relationship with siblings, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter resource_id, but the description adds substantial meaning: strict format 'type:id' with examples (statute:12345, prec:98765), and notes the ID comes from search_korean_law output. This fully clarifies what the parameter expects.

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 'Reads the full content of a specific legal resource using its Typed ID' with specific examples of resource IDs (statute:12345) and mentions full text retrieval, reference resolution, and robustness. This provides a clear and distinct purpose from sibling tools like search_korean_law which returns IDs for use with this tool.

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 indicates that the resource_id comes from search_korean_law output and that reference resolution saves extra round-trips, implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_old_new or explore_legal_chain, or any prerequisites.

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