compare_articles

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

Discloses internal calls to lawService, required parameters per side (mst+jo), efYd for time point, no auto-diff, and truncation. With no annotations, this provides good behavioral context, though read-only nature is implicit.

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?

Single paragraph that conveys all essential info efficiently. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be more structured with bullet points, but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema; description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., raw text, structured comparison). It mentions truncation and LLM comparison but leaves output format ambiguous. Also lacks error handling notes.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds value: explains that mst comes from search_law results (mst=N), jo can be hangul or code with default branch 0 for digits, and efYd is for time-specific querying. This goes beyond the schema.

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 it compares two legal provisions side-by-side, with specific examples (PIPA §15 vs Credit Information Act §32). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_old_new, which compare different versions of the same article.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (analyzing differences between provisions) and what it doesn't do (no automatic diff, LLM must compare). Also advises using get_law_text for full text and search_law to find mst, and mentions 6,000 character truncation.

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