eflaw_josub

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive operations, the description reveals important API constraints: 'JSON not supported by API' and that the tool returns 'Specific law section content' rather than full documents. It also explains the tool's precision focus ('returns only the requested article/paragraph'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 exceptionally well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, immediately provides usage guidance, then systematically documents parameters with clear formatting, and ends with practical examples. Every sentence adds value - there's no redundancy or fluff. The use of bold, code formatting, and clear sections makes it easy to parse.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations beyond basic hints, the description provides comprehensive coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, all parameter semantics, format requirements, dependencies between parameters, API limitations (no JSON support), and provides working examples. The only minor gap is lack of explicit return format details, but 'Specific law section content' is reasonably descriptive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation and excels at it. It provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters: clarifies that 'id or mst is required', explains ef_yd is 'required when using mst', provides format specifications for jo/hang/ho/mok with examples, explains oc defaults, and clarifies type options and defaults. The examples demonstrate practical parameter usage with real values.

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 purpose: 'Query specific article/paragraph by effective date' and explicitly distinguishes it from alternatives by stating 'BEST TOOL for querying specific articles like "제174조", "제3조" etc. This returns only the requested article/paragraph, avoiding large full-law responses.' It provides specific verb (query) and resource (article/paragraph) with clear differentiation from sibling tools that appear to be search or service 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 provides excellent usage guidance with explicit when-to-use statements: 'BEST TOOL for querying specific articles' and 'avoiding large full-law responses.' It also provides concrete examples showing how to use the tool for specific scenarios (자본시장법 제174조, 건축법 제3조 제1항). The guidance helps the agent understand this is for precise retrieval rather than broad searches.

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