fin_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context: the call is a multi-part bundle returned 'in one shot', and the ruling candidates come from a title-keyword search whose applicability is explicitly unverified (적용 관계 미확인). That disclaimer is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs. It does not, however, mention result size, truncation, or what happens when an article number does not exist.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the domain and routing directive; each clause earns its place by naming a distinct part of the returned payload, and the example is embedded compactly rather than given its own sentence.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values — and it does so by enumerating every component (본문, 위임 시행령·시행규칙, 예규 후보, 별표, 개정 정보) plus the reliability caveat on the 예규 portion. For a read-only lookup tool with 100% parameter coverage, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the 약칭 allowance, the '제10조의2' article format, and the basis_date default. The description only echoes the schema's own caveat about keyword-based ruling search and repeats an example article, adding little beyond structured data — 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 bracketed opener states a specific domain (재무·세무·회계 전용) and an explicit precedence rule (세법 조문 질의에는 이 도구를 우선 사용), then enumerates precisely what a single-article query returns: article body, delegated 시행령/시행규칙 articles, 예규 candidates, 별표, and amendment info. The example (법인세법 제26조) makes the unit of work unambiguous, and it is clearly distinguishable from fin_law_search / fin_ruling_search / fin_annex.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use direction ('use this tool first for tax-law article queries') and frames itself as 'the starting point for practical review', which tells the agent where it sits in a workflow. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it supersedes or stating a when-not condition (e.g., use fin_annex for annex-only lookups), so routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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