get_tax_document

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

The description discloses key behaviors: missing sections are omitted, and if the original does not provide the body, it returns DETAIL_NOT_AVAILABLE and does not generate it. This proactively sets expectations about edge cases and output handling.

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 concise yet information-dense. Each sentence contributes: purpose, specification method, structure for both document types, handling of missing sections, and fallback for body. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (different document types with varying fields, potential for missing data), the description is complete. It explains the output structure, edge cases, and fallback behavior. With no output schema provided, the description fully covers what is returned.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds context for ntst_dcm_id and document_number (how they relate to search results and fallback), and mentions include_full_text indirectly via '본문' but does not elaborate on body_limit. It adds some value beyond the schema, but not complete coverage for all parameters.

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 fetches one document's body and structured fields, and distinguishes it from search tools by specifying document ID or number. It also explains the two types of documents (해석례 and 결정례) and their corresponding fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on how to specify the document (by ID or number) and when to expect missing sections. It implies usage after search results (mentioning '검색 결과의 문서 ID') but does not explicitly state not to use for searching or when to choose this over sibling tools. Still, the practical instructions are solid.

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