law_article

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds what they don't: a required LAW_OC environment variable with a specific failure mode ('없으면 발급 안내 오류'), the long-article truncation fallback, and a full enumeration of the return envelope including '읽기 주의', '기준일 안내?' and the delegation-chain alternative shape. That is substantive behavioral disclosure, not restatement.

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?

It is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then uses labeled segments (언제, 반환) that scan well. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational value; the main waste is the as_of advice appearing in both the description and the schema's as_of field.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates the keys of the normal response, the delegation-chain variant, and the caveats field. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret the result appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds selection strategy beyond the schema: put the period-end date in as_of when the facts contain a fiscal/imputation year or tax period, and choose keyword vs paragraph based on whether the paragraph number is known. The as_of guidance is partly duplicated from the schema field text, limiting it to a 4.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get statute text as in force on a date') plus the optional Act → Decree → Rule chain, which is a scope claim no sibling makes. The Korean subtitle repeats the same precise scope (조문 원문 + 3단 위임), so the agent can distinguish it from find_article (article lookup) and 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?

It states when to use it ('세액·요건 판단처럼 사실 발생 시점의 법령이 필요할 때'), how it relates to rulings/interpretations (compare against the law in force at the year in question), and routes to the alternative explicitly ('조문 번호를 모르면 find_article로 먼저 찾는다'). It also gives an intra-tool decision rule: for articles over 4,000 characters use keyword or paragraph, otherwise get the paragraph list.

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