쟁점 자료 묶음

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results come with follow-up identifiers for subsequent lookups. However, it says nothing about pagination despite a cursor parameter, or about the perSource cap, both of which materially affect how the agent calls it.

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 waste. The scope-and-output statement comes first, and the usage cue follows, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for relevance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says results carry identifiers — it doesn't indicate how results are grouped by source or what a partial/empty source yields. Combined with the undocumented cursor and perSource, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for a 4-parameter aggregation tool.

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 only 25% — only 'issue' is documented in the schema. The description explains the issue concept and nods at source types via '법령 조문 / 행정규칙 / 판례·심판례·해석례', but leaves cursor, perSource, and the four rulingSources enum values (court, constitutional, tribunal, moleg) completely unexplained in either place.

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 and resource ('모아 ... 돌려줍니다') and enumerates the three source families it bundles: statute provisions, administrative rules, and ruling/tribunal/interpretation candidates. It implicitly differentiates itself from single-source siblings like find_statute or find_rulings by emphasizing aggregation ('한 번에'), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives a clear positive trigger: '검토메모 작성의 첫 단계로 사용하세요,' which tells the agent this is the entry point before follow-up reads. It does not state when to prefer the granular siblings instead, nor any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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