get_annexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the extraction method (lawName+'별표N') and a note about content location, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe download/return behavior or other nuances. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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: a single sentence stating purpose and extraction pattern, plus one hint sentence. It is front-loaded with the identifier '[별표]' and avoids redundant details. No filler is present, though the brevity limits the depth of guidance provided.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a specialized retrieval purpose, the description provides the core purpose and a usage hint but does not explain return formats, error conditions, or comprehensive selection logic against siblings. The detailed schema compensates for parameter understanding, but the overall context is still somewhat thin for an agent deciding when to invoke this tool.

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%, so all 6 parameters are already documented with meaning. The description's pattern lawName+'별표N' adds a small usage hint, but it largely repeats what the schema conveys (e.g., lawName can include '별표4'). No significant added value 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 the tool retrieves annexes/forms (별표/서식) and gives the pattern lawName+'별표N' for extraction. It is specific to a resource type and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_law (search) and get_law_text (full text) by focusing on annex content, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 offers a usage hint ('금액/기준은 별표에 있는 경우 많음' – amounts/criteria are often in the annex), implying when to use the tool for such content. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternative tools for comparison, leaving the decision partly to inference.

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