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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the return payload (enforcement date, law, list of changed articles), which no annotation provides. Pagination and empty-result behavior are still unstated.

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 compact sentences/fragments, front-loaded with the definition before the usage rationale, with no filler. The middle fragment is telegraphic ('시행일·법령·달라지는 조문 목록') but it earns its place by conveying the return fields.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload contents, and the decision context that motivates a call. Only edge cases (no results, volume of results) are left out.

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% and the single law_name parameter already documents partial-match behavior including 시행령·시행규칙. The description adds nothing about the filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource: returns amendments that are promulgated but not yet in force (시행예정), and names the returned fields (시행일·법령·달라지는 조문). The scoping distinguishes it in practice from get_amendments, but the sibling is never named explicitly, so an agent must infer that 'amendments' means already-in-force changes.

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 an explicit usage trigger: questions involving future tax periods, where answering from current articles alone would be wrong. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to get_amendments as the alternative for in-force amendments.

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