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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that history/version information is returned, but it does not describe the output structure, ordering, whether the current version is included, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the operation and result, then states the targeted question type. There is no filler or redundancy; every part 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 retrieval tool, the description gives the core idea and a usage signal. However, with no output schema, it should more explicitly describe the shape of the returned history and clarify parameters. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It only says "특정 조문" (specific article), which loosely maps to article_number, but gives no format guidance for law_name or article_number and no clarity on exact accepted values.

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 and resource: it returns the amendment history (version history, amendment notation) of a specific article. This distinguishes it from get_article, which would return the current article text, and from search_articles, which searches rather than fetches history.

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 phrase "'언제 바뀌었나' 질문에 사용" explicitly identifies when to use the tool: for questions about when an article changed. It does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude get_article, but the use case is clear enough 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.