get_article_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states that the output is a 'Markdown formatted list of amendments with dates and summaries', which gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It doesn't mention error cases or edge scenarios, but for a read-only history tool, this is adequate.

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 compact and structured into a purpose statement, a bulleted 'use when' list, and explicit Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the layout makes it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter. The description covers what it does, when to use it, how to pass the parameter, and what the return looks like. Given the presence of an output schema, no additional return details are needed. The description is fully sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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's property 'law_name_or_id' has no description, leaving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates with a detailed explanation of accepted formats: law name (with example) or ID (with example). This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the agent needs for correct invocation.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get the revision history (연혁) of a law.' It goes on to specify what information is shown (enactment, amendment, changes). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_law_articles and get_external_links, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly lists three concrete user intents for using this tool ('Know when a law was last amended', 'Track the evolution...', 'Find historical versions...'). It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but provides clear context for when this is the right choice among the siblings.

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