compare_admin_rule_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 states the tool outputs basic info and a list of changed articles with `**변경**` highlights, which is transparent. It does not mention safety or side effects, but given it is a comparison tool, destructive actions are unlikely.

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: it states the core function, highlights key features, provides a concrete use case, and suggests next steps—all in a few sentences with no redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return content (basic info + changed articles list with highlights). It could be more specific about the structure but is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds significant meaning: it explains that the mst parameter accepts both new and old serial numbers and references how to obtain it from search_admin_rule results. This goes well beyond the schema's own description.

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 compares old and new administrative rules, with parallel display and highlighted changes. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_articles and compare_old_new by specifying '행정규칙' (administrative rules) and provides a concrete use case for PIPC notice tracking.

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 gives clear context for use: tracking PIPC notice revisions. It names alternative tools (get_admin_rule_text for full text, search_admin_rule for other notices) and suggests next steps. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or differentiate from all siblings, but the guidance is solid.

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