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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds what the response contains — current statutes plus effective dates and a separate non-tax reference section. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but the payload is a simple inventory.

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?

Four short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage hint last — no filler. Slight redundancy between the current-only statement and the historical-exclusion statement, but both sharpen scope.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned content, including the separate non-tax reference section. No parameters need explaining, so an agent has enough to call this correctly, though the return shape is described only at a high level.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The scope statements still clarify what the implicit 'unfiltered listing' means.

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 concrete verb+resource: returns the list of current tax statutes (법률·시행령·시행규칙) with effective dates stored in this DB. It also demarcates scope precisely — current versions only, historical laws excluded — which effectively separates it from history-oriented siblings like get_article_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 closing line explicitly says to use it to confirm coverage before using other tools, which is a clear usage context. The exclusion of historical laws implies when not to rely on it, though no alternative tool is named for that case.

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