Get a Korean statute article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the network dependency on law.go.kr, the fallback to a dated bundled snapshot, support for sub-articles, and the need to set LAW_OC for live retrieval. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but the core safety and operational behavior is adequately transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose and fallback, sub-article support, and setup requirement. No filler, no repetition of the schema's enum values, and 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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the material operational facts: what is retrieved, from which sources, fallback behavior, and required setup. It does not describe the response format or failure modes, but those are not essential for deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 75%, so the baseline is close to 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: sub-article notation like 제19조의2 is explicitly supported, and the live-vs-snapshot behavior is tied to the LAW_OC environment variable, which helps interpret the 'source' parameter. timeoutMs remains undocumented, but its name and JSON schema constraints make it self-explanatory.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve the current text') and a specific resource: articles of two named Korean statutes, with the official Korean names given. It also distinguishes itself from all 12 sibling tools, which are export-control drafting, classification, and screening tools; none retrieve statute 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 intended use case is clear: fetch a statute article for legal analysis or export-control research. It also explains the live-API vs. bundled-snapshot fallback behavior and the environment-variable requirement. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool is a direct substitute.

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