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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to add substantive behavior: it discloses that changed articles and addenda (effective dates, transitional provisions) are included, and that an English law name triggers an English answer plus a check of whether the official translation matches the version in force. That is real context beyond the structured fields, though it does not cover size or limits of the returned article list.

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, front-loaded with the core in-force/amendment status, with details layered after. The parenthetical glosses on 시행예정 and 부칙 earn their place for disambiguation, though the third sentence is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return content, and it does: the effective date, pending-amendment flag, affected articles, addenda details, and translation-match status. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, lacking only any note on response shape or limits.

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 parameter already documents that Korean or English official names are accepted. The description restates the English-name capability (adding that the reply language follows the input) but adds no format or matching rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource: shows a Korean law's effective date in force and whether a promulgated amendment is not yet in force. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_article, search_law, or compare_law, which retrieve text or compare versions rather than reporting in-force/upcoming status.

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?

Usage is implied by the described output (effective date, pending amendment, addenda), but the description never states when to pick this over search_law or get_article, nor any prerequisites. The English-name behavior hints at a use case but is not framed as routing guidance.

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