get_article_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or return format, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 concise (one sentence) but contains a factual inaccuracy about required parameters. Conciseness without accuracy reduces overall effectiveness.

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?

With 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does not add sufficient context about the return value or edge cases. The contradictory information about required fields further detracts from completeness.

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 description contradicts the input schema by claiming mst/lawId are required ('필수'), while the schema lists only 'jo' as required. This is a critical error that could cause the agent to incorrectly invoke the tool without necessary parameters.

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 precise article details at the clause level (조항호목 단위 정밀 조회) and gives a concrete example (제38조 제2항 제3호). This distinguishes it among many sibling tools focused on other types of legal documents or broader searches.

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 specifies required vs optional parameters and implies usage for detailed clause lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives, which would be helpful given the large sibling set.

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