get_historical_law

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly implies a read-only operation (retrieving text) and specifies the data source (lawService). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or mention error handling, the purpose and usage are transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise—3 short sentences—yet delivers purpose, usage guidance, tips, and sibling references. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and its relationship to siblings. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'mst' has a full description in the input schema, and the tool description adds critical context: it must come from get_law_history's result and represents a specific time point. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema definition.

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 retrieves law text at a specific point in time ('특정 시점 법령 본문'). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_law_history (to obtain mst) and get_law_text (for current text).

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 tells when to use this tool (after get_law_history for historical versions) and when not to (use get_law_text for current text). It provides a specific use case (frequently amended laws like PIPA) and directs to next step (get_law_history to check other msts).

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