판례·결정례 본문 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one real behavioral trait beyond that — the default full=false returns a tiered/abridged body — but '계단식 축약' is jargon and the detail is largely repeated from the `full` parameter description.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the integration scope, with no filler sentences. However, the telegraphic fragments and mixed Korean/English abbreviations ('[통합조회]', '계단식 축약') trade clarity for brevity on a fairly complex 4-parameter nested tool.

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 unified 23-domain retrieval tool with a nested options object and no output schema, the description omits what the returned body looks like, what happens on an invalid or cross-domain id, and why domain-specific options matter. The schema fills in the parameter details, but the description itself is thin relative to 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%, including enum values for domain and detailed per-domain options, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes 'domain+id' and the full=false default, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already documents; 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: retrieves the body text (전문 조회) of precedents/decisions, keyed by domain+id, across 23 domains. That is enough to distinguish it from search_decisions, though the contrast is only implicit in the word 전문 rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no sibling is named; the agent must infer that this is a follow-up call after search_decisions (the 'search 결과에서 획득' hint lives in the schema, not the description). Nothing says when not to call it or what to do for other domains.

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