판례·결정례 본문 조회

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: with full=false (the default) the body is returned in cascading abbreviation rather than in full. That is the single most important thing an agent needs to know before interpreting the output. It stops short of describing response shape or per-domain differences.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is written as clipped fragments that require the reader to reconstruct the meaning. The 'Korean-law-mcp —' prefix is pure overhead with no informational value.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested options object and a 21-value enum, the description covers only the domain/id pair and the full default; the domain-specific options (treaty language code, english_law mst/lawName, caseName) are left entirely to the schema. Adequate given the 100% schema coverage and existing annotations, but thin for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents id, full, domain, and the nested options object in more detail than the description does. The description's 'domain+id' and 'full=false(기본)' merely restate schema content, and the options object is never mentioned. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and resource: full-text retrieval of decision bodies across 21 domains, keyed by domain+id. It is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law_text or search_decisions, and the telegraphic 'Korean-law-mcp —' prefix adds noise rather than clarity.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus search_decisions (to find ids) or get_law_text (for statutes). The only hint of a workflow, obtaining the id from search results, lives in the schema, not the description. There are no exclusions or alternative routing at all.

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