get_admrule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose (body text retrieval) and the id source, but does not mention return format, error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool expected to be invoked independently.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by essential parameter context. Every word is informative, with no filler 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does (returns the body of an administrative rule) and where to obtain the required parameter. It lacks information about error conditions or response structure, but is adequate for straightforward use.

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 input schema provides only the parameter 'id' (string) with no description. The tool description adds meaning by specifying that 'id' is the administrative rule ID from search_admrule results, directly compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It does not provide format specifics, but the semantic is clear.

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's function: retrieving the full text (본문) of administrative rules (고시·훈령·예규). It uses a specific verb (조회) and resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from search tools by focusing on retrieval by ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'get' tools like get_law or get_interpretation.

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 explains that the 'id' parameter is the administrative rule ID from search_admrule results, providing clear contextual guidance that this tool is meant to be used after a search. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the search-to-get workflow is well implied.

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