get_fire_law_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and fails to mention behaviors like truncation when jo is empty, priority of mst, or return format. The schema covers some behavior, but the description adds no transparency beyond the bare function.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a concrete example. Every word is useful; there is no waste or irrelevant detail.

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 read tool with three optional, well-described parameters, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could benefit from noting what the response looks like or how it relates to sibling tools. The basic premise is covered, but deeper context is missing.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including examples. The description's example is redundant and does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb '조회' (inquiry) and resource '조문 전문' (full text of provisions), clearly indicating the tool retrieves the full text of a specific fire law article. The example with lawName and jo makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_fire_law.

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 a usage example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema hints at a workflow (using MST from search_fire_law), but the description itself only implies usage without offering exclusions or alternative guidance.

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