compare_old_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it compares the most recent amendment, returns Markdown formatted output, and shows changed articles. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or edge cases, the verb 'Get' and return format provide adequate transparency for a read-only tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted usage list, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter format, and return format comprehensively. It adequately prepares the agent to use the tool correctly, with no major gaps.

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 only provides a raw parameter name with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that law_name_or_id accepts either a law name (e.g., '고등교육법') or an ID (e.g., 'statute:12345' or '12345'), with concrete examples for both formats.

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 the old/new article comparison (신구조문대비) for a law' and specifies it compares the most recent amendment side by side. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling search and history tools.

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 includes an explicit 'Use this tool when' section listing three concrete scenarios (see what changed, compare before/after, understand revision scope). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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