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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantive behavior: as_of returns the version in force on that date, coverage begins at 2016-01-01, and out-of-range dates are refused rather than silently resolved to the current text. That refusal rule and the tax-law rejection are exactly the failure modes an agent needs to know about.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the temporal rule, then the tax-law caveat — each earns its place. The long statute enumeration is lengthy but functions as a scope boundary, so it is defensible rather than filler.

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 single-article retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, temporal range, known limitation, and the non-tax restriction that define correct use. It does not say what happens for an unknown law name or nonexistent article, a minor remaining gap.

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; the description still adds meaning by explaining the temporal semantics of as_of (version in force, 2016 floor, no substitution with current law) and by reinforcing that law_name rejects tax-law names. article_number syntax is left entirely to 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 verb and resource: returns provisions (조문) of non-tax reference statutes, with an explicit enumeration of which statutes count. It also draws the boundary against the tax-law siblings ('세법 아님', '세법 이름은 받지 않는다'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_article/search_tax without opening a 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?

Gives clear when-to-use (non-tax statutory provisions, optionally as of a date) and when-not (tax-law questions must be confirmed against tax provisions separately), plus a hard coverage cutoff before 2016-01-01. It stops short of naming the specific fallback sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer that the tax route is get_article/search_tax.

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