get_english_law_text

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no behavioral metadata, the description carries full burden but adds no value.

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 extremely concise, but at the expense of completeness. It could benefit from a sentence structure that front-loads essential details, but currently it is a fragment.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It only says 'full text' without any additional context on behavior or prerequisites, making it inadequate.

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 100% with adequate parameter descriptions (e.g., '법령ID', 'MST', 'lawName', 'apiKey'). The description adds no extra meaning, but the schema itself is informative. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '[영문] 영문 법령 전문' clearly indicates the tool retrieves the full text of English statutes. The verb 'get' and resource 'English law text' are specific, and it is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_law_text' by the explicit mention of English.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'search_english_law' or 'get_law_text'. The agent is left to infer usage without any contextual cues or exclusionary statements.

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