get_legal_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds scoping context for the kind of legal history returned, but says nothing about pagination, limit behavior, or response shape.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the source, resource, and action, making the core meaning immediately accessible.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only lookup: purpose is clear and annotations cover safety semantics. However, no output schema exists and there is no clarification of what the history response contains or how limit applies, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent.

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 only 50%: lawName has a brief description while limit has none. The tool description does not compensate by clarifying limit semantics or adding detail about how lawName should be formatted. With moderate-to-low coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 action (조회) and a precise resource: the enactment/amendment/repeal history of statutes from official national legal information. The word '연혁' clearly differentiates this from sibling detail/content/search tools.

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?

No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, despite many overlapping siblings such as get_legal_detail and search_legal. The scope of history retrieval implies usage, but explicit routing would be more helpful.

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