get_precedent_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action (retrieving full text). It omits important details such as whether the tool is read-only, the need for authentication (apiKey), any rate limits, or what happens if the id is invalid. This leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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, consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 retrieval tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the output format or content beyond 'full text,' and there is no output schema to fill the gap. However, the tool's name and sibling context (e.g., search_precedents) provide some implicit completeness, so a minimal score is reasonable.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., id obtained from search_precedents, caseName used for verification), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new information about parameter meaning or usage, so the 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 '판례 전문 조회' clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve the full text of a precedent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_precedents' (which returns search results) and 'summarize_precedent' (which summarizes), making the specific function evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should typically follow a search_precedents call to obtain an id, nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring an apiKey. This lack of context forces the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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