article_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it picks the edition in force at asOf and returns 항·호·목 hierarchy plus amendment markers. It is silent, though, on pagination/truncation behavior implied by the 'part' (이어받기) and maxBytes budget parameters.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The parenthetical about empty articles earns its place by defining a distinct output mode.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, version selection, and return structure, which is the essential part. It omits the paging/byte-budget story (part, maxBytes) needed to know how truncated results are continued, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 89%, so the schema already documents every parameter (including 'articles 비우면 목차', asOf, format, maxBytes). The description largely restates those semantics rather than adding new syntax or interaction rules, so the baseline 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?

The verb+resource are concrete: fetch the full text of statute provisions (법령 조문 원문을 전문으로 가져온다), with a stated variant when articles is empty (TOC only). This clearly separates it from a pure-outline sibling. However, it never names or routes against the actual siblings (statute_outline, statute_find), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: passing articles yields full text, empty articles yields just the number/title TOC, and asOf selects the version. There is no explicit 'use this instead of statute_outline when…' or any exclusion against annex_get/statute_history. Adequate but leaves sibling disambiguation to inference.

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