get_law_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the jo conversion rule, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it states mst/lawId are 필수 (required) while the schema lists no required parameters, a contradiction with the schema. It also doesn't clarify what happens when jo is omitted. These inconsistencies reduce transparency.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key usage details. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the parentheticals make it slightly dense. It earns a 4.

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 a simple lookup, but the description leaves ambiguity about behavior when jo is omitted and the return format. It also has the requiredness inconsistency with the schema. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, it's mostly complete but has notable gaps.

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 are already documented in detail. The description repeats the jo conversion rule but adds no new semantic beyond the schema. It mentions mst/lawId necessity, which is more of a usage note than parameter semantics. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves full text of a specific article ('조문 전문 조회'), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_law (which finds laws) and get_decision_text (which gets decisions) by focusing on article-level text retrieval.

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?

It explicitly indicates that mst/lawId are obtained from search_law, establishing a workflow. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over other tools like get_annexes or legal_research, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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