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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond the annotations — the '매일 새벽 대조' daily-dawn reconciliation cadence that explains the data's freshness — but says nothing about ordering, snapshot 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 short clauses, no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. The Korean/English duplication is mildly redundant but serves bilingual agents and costs little.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, the essentials are present, but the description omits result ordering and what 'amended' covers, which an agent would want before routing to this tool over search_law.

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 the lone 'limit' parameter documented with range and default in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 states a specific resource (recently amended/enacted Korean laws) with an implied list verb and adds a scope qualifier ('최근', recently) that distinguishes it from a general search_law or get_law. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never contrasts this tool with search_law, get_law, or get_article, leaving the agent to guess why it would pick 'recently amended laws' over a normal search.

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