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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavior: it expands up and down the delegation chain, bundles annex forms tied to the article, and flags non-tax laws with a '세법 아님' marker. It does not discuss resolution limits or what happens when no tier linkage exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three-tier return is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by input flexibility, annex forms, and the non-tax-law caveat — each sentence carries distinct information. It is dense but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape (three tiers, annex forms, non-tax marker), which is the key thing an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior such as articles with no decree/rule counterpart.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: law_name may point at a decree/rule level and article_number still resolves the surrounding tiers, which is not obvious from the schema alone. The 약칭 acceptance is only echoed from the schema.

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 action (3단으로 반환한다) and a specific resource (법률·시행령·시행규칙 조문 본문), plus a concrete extra output (별지 서식). An agent can tell it is the multi-tier/expanded lookup rather than a plain article fetch, although no sibling is named outright to sharpen the contrast with get_article or get_reference_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?

Gives useful applicability cues: it works even when you pass an enforcement-decree or enforcement-rule article ('시행령·시행규칙 쪽 조문을 넣어도 위아래를 찾는다') and it covers non-tax referenced laws. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for a single-law article, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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