국세청 예규 본문

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the HTML-stripping behavior, table whitespace retention, fixed section order, source acquisition rationale, and the appended source link with the '원문 대조' warning. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and input, then compactly states output formatting, ordering, source rationale, and citation warning. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, this description covers input forms, output type/structure, source, and a critical usage warning (keep the '원문 대조' warning when citing). Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

The schema already documents ntstDcmId at 100% coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds the exact accepted domain (taxlaw.nts.go.kr link) and reinforces the relationship to search_tax_interpretation outputs, providing a bit more meaning than the generic '상세 링크 URL' in the schema.

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 operation ('예규 전문을 받아 ... 평문으로 돌려준다'), an exact input resource (ntstDcmId or taxlaw.nts.go.kr link), and the output format/order. It also implies differentiation from the sibling search_tax_interpretation by referencing that tool's ntstDcmId as the input source.

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 description and schema make clear this tool consumes an ntstDcmId produced by search_tax_interpretation, so the intended workflow is find-then-fetch. It explains why it fetches from the NTS public page rather than the law office API, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the sibling as the search alternative.

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