get_treaty_text

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions (beyond the apiKey parameter), rate limits, or side effects. It is a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for parameters).

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 schema describes all 3 parameters fully and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input context. However, it lacks information about output format, error conditions, or usage examples, which could help in complex scenarios.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'id' comes from search_treaties, 'chrClsCd' enum values map to Korean/English with a Korean default, and 'apiKey' is an authentication key. This enriches the schema definitions, which are already present.

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 treaty text and allows language selection (Korean/English). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_law_text and get_ordinance_text by specifying the resource type (treaty).

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 when not to use it or list related tools for different document types.

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