조세조약(이중과세방지협약) 조문을 전문검색한다. 비거주자·외국법인의 원천징수 제한세율, 고정사업장, 사용료·배당·이자 과세권 확인에 사용. country로 특정국 한정 가능. 본문에 개정의정서가 반영되지 않았을 수 있어 list_treaties로 이력 확인 필요.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 기본 5, 최대 15 | |
| query | Yes | 검색어 (예: '사용료', '고정사업장', '배당 제한세율') | |
| country | No | 체결국 한글명 필터 (부분 일치) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful limitation: the main text may not reflect amending protocols, so verification via list_treaties is needed. This is beyond schema information, though it does not cover every possible behavior such as result ordering or rate limits.
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 with no filler: core purpose, then use cases, then the caveat and alternative tool. Information is front-loaded and 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 search tool with 3 documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what to search, why, the optional country filter, and an important data-freshness caveat. It is slightly less complete on result shape, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, country, and limit. The description adds only a modest clarification that country restricts to a specific nation, but no new parameter semantics beyond 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: full-text search of tax treaty articles (조세조약 조문 전문검색). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_articles and search_annexes by targeting treaties and names concrete use cases such as withholding tax rates and permanent establishment rules.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use context (limitation rates, PE, royalties/dividends/interest taxation) and an explicit alternative: list_treaties for treaty history because the main text may not reflect amending protocols. This provides clear guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.
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.