get-law-detail

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It implies a read-only lookup ('조회') but does not mention any side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has four parameters with conditional requirements and no output schema. The description gives a high-level overview but omits usage context such as the need to have a lawId from search-law or the conditional need for efYd. It is adequate but relies heavily on the schema for operational details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning by mentioning the two identifier modes (lawId or mst), but does not elaborate on conditional requirements (e.g., efYd required with mst) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves detailed content (articles) of a specific law, using a law ID or master number. It provides a specific verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (법령 상세 내용), but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'search-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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'search-law'. It only states what it does and the lookup methods, without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., use search-law first) or when to prefer one identifier over the other.

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