Read a Korean statute

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 structurally. The description adds the auth requirement (LAW_OC key) and the article-level granularity option, which the annotations do not convey. No mention of rate limits or response shape, keeping it at 4.

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 English lead sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is structured, so key facts are easy to find. The Korean restatement duplicates the English meaning, which costs some space for a non-Korean-reading agent, but it is short and not padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: where doc_id comes from, how target must align, and the credential prerequisite. Return-value details are not required given no output schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and it does: doc_id is explained as the serial number from search_law (with the two possible target-specific variants), and target is documented with its two concrete values 'law'/'admrul' even though the schema declares no enum. This materially compensates for the empty schema.

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 verb (fetch), resource (full text of a Korean statute), scope (by name or MST id, optionally one article), and names the search_law sibling as the source of doc_id. The only wrinkle is the 'by name' claim, which the schema's single string doc_id does not obviously support, but the tool's job is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly ties the call to a prerequisite workflow: doc_id must be the 법령일련번호/행정규칙일련번호 returned by search_law, and target must match the target used there. That is clear routing guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative for other cases, 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.