compare_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 returns a Markdown comparison, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential requirements (e.g., latest amendment existence), auth needs, or error handling. Adequate but could be more 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?

The description is concise with three sentences plus a bulleted usage list and Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly tighter, but no wasted words.

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 single parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. It covers the main use cases and return format. Missing potential details like default behavior or error conditions, but still fairly complete.

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 only one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter accepts law name or ID, providing examples (e.g., '고등교육법', 'statute:12345'), which adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's bare type 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 gets the old/new article comparison for a law and shows changes in the most recent amendment. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('comparison'), and the mention of side-by-side comparison distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_article_history' which shows revision history.

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 includes a bulleted list of when to use the tool: seeing exact changes, comparing before/after, and understanding revision scope. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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