get_law_abbreviations

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states the function and date filtering. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements (though apiKey parameter hints at auth), pagination, or rate limits, which are necessary given the absence of annotations.

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 that front-load the core purpose and filter capability. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary information.

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 list retrieval tool with optional date filtering and authentication, the description covers the essential aspects. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. Minor improvement possible.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the filtering purpose of stdDt/endDt but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it retrieves a full list of law abbreviations, which is a specific resource. The [유틸] prefix and '전체 목록 조회' make the purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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. It mentions date filtering but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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