현행 세법 조문을 전문검색한다. 키워드는 조사 없는 명사 위주가 정확함 (예: '이월과세 배우자', '대손세액공제'). law_name으로 특정 법령 한정 가능.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 최대 결과 수 (기본 8, 최대 20) | |
| query | Yes | 검색어 (명사 위주, 구문검색은 따옴표) | |
| law_name | No | 법령명 필터 (부분 일치, 예: '소득세법') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains search behavior (full-text), the current-law scope, and important query behavior—keyword accuracy improves with nouns without particles—with concrete examples. It does not describe the return shape, but the disclosed behavioral details are genuinely useful for invocation.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by actionable search tips and a filter option. Every sentence earns its place.
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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain, query behavior, and filtering. It does not describe the return format, but the examples and sibling tools like get_article make the intended workflow reasonably clear. Slightly more detail on what results contain would make it fully complete.
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. The description adds meaningful beyond-schema guidance for query semantics (noun-based keywords, particle avoidance, examples) and confirms law_name's limiting role. limit is left to the schema, which is acceptable.
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 and resource: '현행 세법 조문을 전문검색한다' (full-text search of current tax law provisions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cases, search_interpretations, and search_treaties by scope and resource type.
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 gives clear context: full-text search over current tax statutes, with law_name as a filtering option. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_article for known article lookups or search_interpretations for interpretive materials. Usage conditions are implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: get/list/search separated across articles, annexes, treaties, laws, upcoming changes, cases, and interpretations. Even the search/get pairs are clearly delineated by role, and cases vs interpretations are distinguished by source type.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_) with clear resource nouns. Minor variation like list_upcoming is still intuitive and does not break the overall pattern.
Twelve tools is appropriate for a tax law research server covering statutes, annexes, treaties, judicial cases, administrative interpretations, and upcoming amendments. Each tool has a non-redundant role, and the set is neither bloated nor thin.
The tool surface covers the core tax law research workflow well: searching and retrieving articles/annexes/treaties, listing available sources, checking legislative histories, and reviewing upcoming changes. A minor gap is the absence of explicit get_ tools for full case and interpretation documents, though the search tools may provide sufficient access.