verify_statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value: the LAW_OC API dependency, an explicit no-fabrication guarantee ('지어내지 않는다'), and the rule logic that triggers each verdict. These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in two short lines, and the return block is dense but justified since there is no output schema. The verdict-rule sentence is long and nested, costing some readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 fully carries the return contract: the verdict enum, the signal-based rule, the 0.5 overlap threshold, and the shape of 대조/단서 arrays. Combined with API and read-only notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail (e.g., how paragraph '②' interacts with article). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (글자 수준 대조) and resource (조문 원문), plus the exact output signal ('모순 신호(숫자·양태·반대말·시점)와 단서 누락'). An agent can immediately tell this is a statement-vs-statute comparison tool, not a search or lookup tool, distinguishing it from siblings like law_article or find_article.

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 '언제' line gives explicit context ('보기 문장·주장·고객 진술이 특정 조문과 맞는지 확인할 때') and an exclusion ('법적 판단을 대신하지 않는다'). It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., verify_citations) or say when NOT to use it versus those, so it falls short of a 5.

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