fin_verify

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent, but the description goes well beyond: it defines the 3-value return, states it will not disguise errors as '없음', flags that 국세청 기본통칙·집행기준 are absent from the DB and marked ⚠ without number verification, and marks deleted articles as ⚠ (사용 보류). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 priority-usage directive is front-loaded and the behavioral rules follow in a logical order with no filler. It is dense rather than verbose, though the single long sentence packs several distinct constraints together, slightly reducing scannability.

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 return-value burden and discharges it: it defines the three possible verdicts and the scope limit ('✓ = existence of the number only, not 항·호 or content'). Alternatives and edge cases (deleted articles, DB-missing sources) are all covered.

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 both parameters (text, basis_date) are already documented with types and one inline hint ('생략 시 현행'). The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it verifies the existence of cited statutes/articles/administrative rules by cross-checking the 법제처 DB and returns a 3-valued result. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling fin_article by declaring that content-correctness checking belongs there, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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 bracketed lead states the preferred use case ('우선 사용' for citation verification in review/answer drafts) and names the alternative tool (fin_article) with the exact condition that selects it (content verification). Both when-to-use and the sibling boundary are explicit.

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