출산·육아 휴가 근거 법 조문 조회(법제처)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: an external open API is called, a LAW_OC credential is required, and output is advisory-only rather than authoritative legal advice. It does not discuss rate limits, failure modes, or how a missing/invalid LAW_OC surfaces, which keeps it below a 5.

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 scope and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the credential requirement and the advisory disclaimer following in short, separate sentences. The first sentence is long due to the parenthetical field list, but every element earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the source system, the exact fields returned, the required credential, and the advisory-only limitation. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret what comes back.

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% and the single enum parameter already spells out each value with its governing statute (남녀고용평등법 vs 근로기준법). The description only restates the same three leave categories, adding no mapping, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (조회) and a specific resource (배우자 출산휴가·출산전후휴가·육아휴직의 근거 법 조문), and enumerates the returned fields (법령명, 조 번호와 제목, 항·호 내용, 공포·시행일). It also names the upstream source (법제처 국가법령정보 Open API), which no sibling tool touches — the other ten siblings are all lookup tools for childcare, benefits, clinics, and drugs.

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 scope of use is clear from the enumerated leave types and the stated source, so an agent knows to call this when a legal basis for leave is needed. It also sets an explicit exclusion — no legal interpretation or legal advice, results are reference-only. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to call it in a routing sense, but no sibling overlaps this domain.

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