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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the operation returns the current full text, including enforcement dates and delegated subordinate statute provisions. This goes beyond a generic 'get article' statement and clarifies the read-only nature without needing annotations.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the accuracy directive in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the full current text, and what it includes. It gives the agent enough to call it correctly and to treat the result as authoritative for numeric details.

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 the schema already fully documents law_name and article_number with examples. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, though it reinforces that the returned text is the authoritative source for precise figures. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: 'returns the entire current original text of a specific article.' The phrase '현행 원문' differentiates it from history tools, and the inclusion of '위임 하위법령 조문' clarifies scope beyond a bare article lookup. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_article_history, search_articles, and get_treaty_article.

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?

Explicitly instructs that exact figures such as tax rates, limits, and requirements must be verified using this tool. This gives a clear when-to-use directive. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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