get_annex

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 behavior. It transparently notes that on extraction failure, a file link is returned, which is valuable context. Normal return is implied as text content, which is sufficient for a read-only lookup tool.

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, split into three short segments: main purpose, key examples, and failure behavior. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage examples, and failure behavior. No output schema exists, but the return value is clearly implied by '본문 조회' (text lookup), making this complete.

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% with both parameters well-described, including examples. The description adds domain-specific context (which annex numbers matter) but does not add new syntax or format details 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's function: lookup of annex/form text of statutes ('법령 별표·서식 본문 조회'). It gives concrete examples of key annexes (training hours, special health exam cycle) which distinguish it from siblings like get_law or search_admrule.

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 provides practical usage examples (e.g., training hours = Enforcement Rules Annex 4·5, special health exam = Annex 23), implicitly guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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