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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real behavior: the selection ordering (경과조치→적용례→당시 판→후속 개정), the fact that only clauses mentioning the article are excerpted, and that changed wording at version boundaries is appended. It stops short of describing the response shape or how many items come back beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the why, then the mechanics, then the fallback – no filler sentences. The middle sentence is long and packs several rules at once, which costs some readability but every clause is load-bearing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it does so partially by explaining ranking order, excerpting scope, and appended wording changes. It leaves the actual returned fields unstated, but for a lookup tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations this is close to sufficient.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by stating what period_start/period_end actually mean (event dates such as 취득·증여·양도일) and how they drive selection. It also gives the default-order behavior when they are omitted, which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource: find an article's 적용례/경과조치 in the 부칙 (supplementary provisions), and explicitly contrasts this with looking at the 조문 itself ('언제부터 적용되는지는 조문이 아니라 부칙에 있다'). The resource is distinctive enough to separate it from get_article / get_article_history, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (when you need to know from when a provision applies) and a concrete calling pattern: supply period_start/period_end as event dates. It also states a fallback when no dates are given ('날짜가 없으면 최근 공포 순'), so behavior is predictable. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool.

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