get_daily_to_legal

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as external API dependency (implied by apiKey parameter), rate limits, or output format. The tool's behavior is opaque beyond its basic function.

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 one short sentence, but it includes the prefix '[지식베이스]' which adds marginal context. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded, though it could be more streamlined.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain return values or the tool's place in a larger workflow. The apiKey parameter hints at an external API call, but this is not clarified. The tool's simplicity limits the need for extensive context, but key missing information reduces 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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description adds a concrete example (e.g., '월세' → '임대차'), which enhances understanding of the dailyTerm parameter. With 100% schema coverage, this is above the baseline.

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 maps everyday terms to legal terms, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_legal_to_daily', which performs the reverse mapping.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_legal_to_daily' or other search tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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