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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context beyond a simple 'returns text' by specifying that the result includes effective date, verified delegated statutes, appendices, and verified citations, and cautions that citations are not confirmed application. This gives the agent a realistic picture of the returned content, though it does not address edge cases or failure modes.

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 two well-structured sentences. The main functionality is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage directive and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema), and the description sufficiently explains what is returned and the reliability caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention the difference from treaty articles or historical versions for even stronger disambiguation.

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%, so the schema already documents law_name and article_number with examples. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb (returns the entire current original text) and a specific resource (a particular article of a law), and enumerates the included components (effective date, verified delegated laws, appendices, verified citations). This distinguishes it from obvious siblings like get_article_history or get_treaty_article without needing the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: '정확한 수치는 반드시 이 도구로 원문을 확인할 것' (must verify exact figures with this tool). It also warns that citations are not confirmed as applicable. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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