get_law

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: omitting article returns the full text, but large laws may be truncated. It also clarifies that mst is a law serial number from search_law. However, it does not mention error handling or response format, which could be expected for a retrieval 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: the mst relationship, article filtering, and truncation warning. 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?

For a two-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the main aspects: what it fetches, how to get the mst, how to specify an article, and the truncation caveat. It does not describe the exact return structure, but no output schema exists, so the description is reasonably complete for typical 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that mst is a law serial number from search_law and provides article format examples (e.g., 제36조, 제10조의2). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 retrieves the text of law articles ('법령 조문 본문 조회') and ties it to the MST from search_law results. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_admrule, get_interpretation, and get_annex.

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 the prerequisite that mst comes from search_law results and describes how to use the article parameter for specific provisions. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the resource-specific context makes when-to-use clear.

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