get_kosha_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It transparently explains the cache-first strategy (로컬 캐시 우선), the download-and-extract flow on cache miss/revision, and the fallback to returning a PDF link when extraction fails (e.g., scanned documents). This covers key behavioral nuances beyond mere 'lookup', though it omits details like error responses or permission requirements.

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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add valuable caching and failure-mode details. Every clause contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple interface (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how it handles cache misses, and what happens on extraction failure. It could optionally mention the exact response shape, but the mention of 'md' body and PDF link fallback provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'guideNo' with an example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 the markdown body of a KOSHA guide via '본문(md) 조회', which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_kosha_guide and other retrieval tools like get_law. The verb '조회' (lookup) combined with the specific resource 'KOSHA GUIDE' and format '(md)' provides a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage for fetching a specific guide's content by guide number, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_kosha_guide for finding guides. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, so the usage context is only implied rather than clearly delineated.

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