get_local_tax_decision

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 discloses what's returned (full text with listed fields) but doesn't describe safety profile (read-only presumably), error behavior, whether partial data can be retrieved, or any rate limits. For a retrieval tool this is a moderate gap—it's clearly a read operation but lacks behavioral detail.

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 a compact single sentence that conveys the resource, its contents, and usage in Korean. No wasted words. However, the enclosed field list in parentheses is somewhat dense and could be structured better for parsing.

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 retrieval tool with a single required param, this is reasonably complete. There's no output schema, so the description's list of returned fields (세목·재결요지·참조결정·주문·이유) serves as the output documentation, which is valuable. The undocumented 'oc' param and lack of behavioral notes leave some gaps.

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 50%: the 'id' parameter has a Korean description (특별행정심판재결례일련번호) but 'oc' has none. The description explains that 'id' should come from search results, which adds context beyond the schema's bare field name. However, the 'oc' parameter remains entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description doesn't clarify its purpose/optionality.

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 states it returns the full text of a 조세심판원 재결례 (tax tribunal decision) including specific fields (세목, 재결요지, 참조결정, 주문, 이유). This clearly identifies the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (full decision text). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_local_tax_decisions, though the distinction is implied by the contrast with 'search'.

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 provides clear usage guidance: input the [ID] obtained from search results. This tells the agent how to use the tool (after a search) and implies it's the follow-up step to search_local_tax_decisions. Explicit exclusion of alternatives isn't stated, but the search→get workflow is clearly conveyed.

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