get_ordinance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states '조회' (inquiry) and '전문' (full text), implying a read-only operation but does not confirm safety, idempotency, or any potential side effects. No error conditions or return format details are provided.

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 (one short sentence), which is efficient for a simple tool. However, it omits potentially useful context such as return value structure or usage notes, making it borderline adequate.

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 output schema and annotations, the description falls short. It does not explain what the returned 'full text' looks like, how to interpret the response, or handle errors. For a tool that likely returns a large textual document, this is insufficient.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (ordinSeq and apiKey). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states it retrieves the full text of a local ordinance or rule (조례/규칙 전문 조회). The verb '조회' (inquiry) combined with '전문' (full text) indicates the core purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_alio_regulation or get_law_text, though the context '자치법규' (local ordinance) implies a specific scope.

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 such as get_alio_regulation or search_ordinance. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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