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 usefully reveals that the tool returns current statutes with effective dates, includes only current entries, and excludes historical ones. However, it does not describe the output shape, ordering, pagination, or any response limitations.

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 three concise Korean sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, the current-only scope, and when to use it. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 no-input list tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the returned content, effective dates, scope, exclusions, and intended use before other tools. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit response format, but no output schema is provided, so this is a limited weakness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on result scope rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('반환한다' / returns) and a clear resource: the current tax law statute list (laws, enforcement decrees, enforcement rules) with effective dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_treaties and list_upcoming, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other schemas.

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 says it is for checking the DB coverage before using other tools, which gives clear usage context. It also clarifies that only current statutes are included and historical ones are excluded, though it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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