get_law_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the ID format and source but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what 'detailed information' includes, error behavior, or access requirements. The description is too sparse to give the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for a simple single-parameter lookup 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 simple lookup with one parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential usage steps: what it does and how to get the required ID. It lacks details like return structure or error conditions, but given the output schema exists and the tool's low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only a bare resource_id string with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining what the parameter is (법령 리소스 ID), providing concrete examples (LSI259471, SCPB2200000130717), and explaining how to obtain it from search_law results. This is strong added value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '특정 법령의 상세 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves detailed information of a specific statute), with a specific verb and resource. It also references 'search_law' for ID extraction, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_laws or get_statistics, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage context by stating the ID can be extracted from search_law results, providing a workflow hint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID source. This is implied guidance, not explicit.

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