statute_find

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral load and does disclose the returned fields (법령ID, MST, 법종, 시행일, 시행예정 판) plus the fact that it returns next-call examples. It omits pagination behavior despite page/size params and says nothing about rate limits, so it is good but not complete.

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 tightly-packed sentences that front-load the core action (find/filter) and then the return payload. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration is dense and slightly hard to parse.

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 10-parameter tool with 0 required params, 30% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is thinner than the complexity warrants. It handles return values and the main search axes but leaves the mode/match/scope enums and pagination semantics for the agent to discover from the schema alone.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 30% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only covers part of it: it maps loosely to query/names (name & batch) and promulgatedFrom/To (date range). It leaves mode, match, scope, kinds, page, and size entirely unelaborated, so several enum-driven behaviors remain opaque.

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+resource (법령을 찾는다 = find statutes) and enumerates the modalities: name/keyword, autocomplete, batch names, and promulgation-date range. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never differentiates itself from likely-overlapping siblings like source_search or statute_outline, so an agent must still guess which search tool to pick.

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 through the listed search modes (autocomplete, batch names, date range) rather than stated as when-to-use conditions. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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