get_ordinance_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving text and filtering by article, but doesn't disclose return format, whether the full document is paginated, authorization needs, or error behavior when seq is invalid. For a read tool with zero annotations, this is thin.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the primary function, the second explains the article filter option. Zero waste.

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 1-3 parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential workflow (chain from search_reduction_ordinance, article filtering). However, the undocumented 'oc' parameter and absence of return-format details leave some gaps for an agent operating in a Korean regulatory context.

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 67% (seq and jo have descriptions, oc does not). The description adds meaning for seq (source field from search_reduction_ordinance) and jo (article filtering, example given in schema). oc remains undocumented in both schema and description. Partial improvement over schema but not complete.

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 '자치법규 본문 조회' (retrieve autonomous law text body), a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_reduction_ordinance by referencing its result field [자치법규일련번호]. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other get/search tools in the sibling set.

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?

It explicitly says to feed in the [자치법규일련번호] from search_reduction_ordinance results, establishing a clear workflow chain. It also notes that 'jo' can extract specific articles. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools explicitly.

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