get_interpretation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the id must be from search_interpretation, which is useful, but it does not describe the output format, error handling for invalid ids, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though '조회' implies reading). The description is minimal and lacks richer behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise, comprising two clauses that state the tool's purpose and the id's origin. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or vague filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id tool.

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?

Despite the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selecting and invoking the tool: it names the resource, confirms the id comes from a specific search tool, and implies the return of the full text via '본문 조회'. It would benefit from a note about the expected response type, but the essential information for a get-by-id operation is present.

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 provides only the parameter name 'id' with type string and no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that the id is the '법령해석례일련번호' (serial number) from search_interpretation results, which adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema and helps the agent understand exactly what value to provide.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: '법령해석례 본문 조회' (retrieve the full text of statutory interpretation precedents). It names a specific verb ('조회') and resource ('법령해석례 본문'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_interpretation by indicating this is a direct lookup by id rather than a search.

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 notes that 'id는 search_interpretation 결과의 법령해석례일련번호' (the id is the serial number from search_interpretation results), which clearly implies this tool should be used after obtaining an id from a search. This gives practical context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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