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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the payload contents — original text, amendment tags, voting-compliance application notes, related agenda types — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover missing-law behavior or result size.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and then the key conditional, with no filler. Dense domain jargon (개정 꼬리표, 투표함 적용 내용) makes it terse rather than verbose, which is appropriate for the audience.

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?

With no output schema and heavy annotation coverage, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating what each record contains and defining the empty-article case. Missing only edge-case behavior such as an unknown law argument, which is minor for a closed-world read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both law (name or slug, with an example and a pointer to list_laws) and article (e.g. 제38조, empty = all) are already fully documented in structured fields. The description's restatement of the empty-article behavior adds only the nuance that the scope is *tracked* articles, a marginal gain over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves the raw text of one statute's articles (조·항·호) together with amendment tags, ballot-box compliance notes, and related agenda types. This is clearly distinct from list_laws, which the schema names as the enumeration source. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison in the description itself, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only usage guidance is the conditional 'article 을 비우면 추적 조문 전부' — it explains how to get everything at once, which is useful. There is no statement of when to reach for this versus law_changelog or list_laws, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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