get_article_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return format ('Markdown formatted list') and essential behavior (historical amendments). Does not disclose authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only history tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two short paragraphs plus Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose. No fluff.

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 one parameter and simple functionality, description fully covers what the tool does, when to use, how to use (parameter examples), and what to expect (Markdown output). No gaps.

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?

Single parameter 'law_name_or_id' is well-described with examples (name, ID formats). Schema only provides 'string' and title; description adds critical usage context, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the revision history of a law' with specific verb and resource. Lists concrete use cases (e.g., 'Know when a law was last amended') that distinguish it from sibling tools like search_korean_law or read_legal_resource.

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 provides 'when the user wants to' scenarios. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the use cases are sufficiently narrow to imply context. Slight deduction for no exclusion guidance.

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