simplify_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beneficial behavioral context by mentioning the use of the official 법제처 terminology database and describing the return structure (original text, simplified text, glossary), which is not redundant with annotations.

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 opens with a one-line purpose, then provides a concise technical explanation, followed by structured Args, Returns, and Examples. Every section is purposeful, and the examples illustrate usage effectively without excess verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: it explains the return format, gives realistic usage examples, and defines optional parameters. This makes the tool's behavior understandable and actionable for an agent.

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?

Despite schema_description_coverage being 0%, the description compensates with an explicit Args section explaining each parameter, including examples (e.g., article=750, article_branch=2) and defaults for type and article_branch. This provides meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a law article with legal terms replaced by everyday Korean' and further explains it fetches and annotates legal jargon. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools by emphasizing simplification rather than raw retrieval.

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 purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is implied from the tool's function but not spelled out.

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