law_josub

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it performs targeted lookup by announcement date and returns only the requested section to avoid large responses. It also documents the OC override behavior, though it does not cover error cases or response formatting details.

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 well-organized with a one-line summary, a bold usage cue, an Args block, a Returns line, and two concrete examples. Every section contributes necessary information without filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and a complex Korean legal citation format. The description fully compensates by defining every parameter, explaining the targeted vs. full-law behavior, listing response format options, and providing multiple worked examples. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% property descriptions, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It does this excellently: id/mst requirements, the jo XXXXXX format with examples, hang/ho/mok formats, oc defaulting to an env var, and type defaulting to JSON are all documented clearly. This is well beyond the baseline for schema-covered tools.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Query specific article/paragraph by announcement date' and clearly targets individual law provisions. It explicitly positions itself as 'BEST TOOL for querying specific articles' and notes that it returns only the requested article/paragraph, distinguishing it from full-law retrieval siblings.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: for querying specific articles like '제174조' or '제3조' and for avoiding large full-law responses. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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