get_decision_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond this: full=false (default) progressively condenses the body, which informs the agent that full=true is required for unabridged text. This complements, and does not contradict, the annotations.

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 compact — a single front-loaded line with no filler. The leading 'Korean-law-mcp —' prefix is meta labeling rather than functional content, and the dense Korean shorthand (계단식 축약) reduces immediate parseability, but the description remains efficient and well-oriented.

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?

The tool is complex — an 18-domain enum, a nested options object with domain-specific structures (treaty, english_law, precedent), and no output schema. The rich schema (100% coverage) carries most of the weight, and the description supplies the key default behavior. Still, the description leaves usage context (fetch vs search) unaddressed, which is significant given the absence of an output schema.

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 four parameters (domain, id, full, options) are already documented in the schema, including the full default behavior, domain enums, and options structure. The description restates domain+id and the full=false default without adding meaning beyond the schema, so it only meets the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action — full-text retrieval (통합조회) of decisions across 18 domains using domain+id. It identifies the resource (decision text) and the retrieval mechanism. However, it does not explicitly name siblings like get_law_text (law text vs decision text) or search_decisions (search vs direct id fetch), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions search_decisions, get_law_text, or when direct id-based retrieval is appropriate. The only usage hint ('obtained from search results') lives in the schema's id description, not the tool description, so the agent gets no explicit routing help between 9 siblings.

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