get_public_institution_rule_text

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the nature of the output. The apiKey parameter suggests authentication but is not explained in the description.

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 a single short sentence, concise and to the point. However, it is overly minimal and could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 that the tool has no output schema and 2 parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention that the output is the full text of a regulation, nor does it provide any context about the apiKey or the need for prior search. The description feels incomplete for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the documentation work.

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 action ('조회', view) and the resource ('공공기관 규정 본문', text of public institution regulations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_public_institution_rules and get_public_corp_rule_text by specifying the exact type of regulation text.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the 'id' should come from a search result, despite the schema hinting at it. No explicit context for use cases is provided.

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