get_moi_interpretation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It confirms it's a read/retrieval operation but doesn't describe what happens with invalid/missing IDs, whether the returned document contains the complete official text, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. For a detail-fetch tool, the lack of these details is a moderate gap.

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 single concise sentence that states the resource, the content components, and the required id origin. Efficient with no wasted words, though slightly under-specified in behavioral transparency.

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 single-parameter detail-fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what it returns and where to source the id, which is enough for basic use. However, it doesn't describe the return format (structured JSON vs raw text) or error behavior, and lacks the behavioral depth expected without annotations.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single id parameter (OLTA 문서 ID). The description adds the valuable context that the id comes from search_moi_interpretation results, which gives it provenance beyond the schema. However, no additional format/syntax details are provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool retrieves the full text of an MOI (행정안전부) interpretation including 답변요지, 질의요지, 회신내용. It clearly identifies the resource and that it's the detail view paired with search_moi_interpretation. It could more explicitly distinguish from get_local_tax_decision, though the Korean MCP shows this is specifically for MOI interpretations.

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 instructs to use the [ID] from search_moi_interpretation results, which creates a clear usage pattern where search comes first then detail retrieval. This differentiates from sibling get_local_tax_decision by its linkage to the specific search tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it.

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