get_local_tax_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that year/efYd selects the version in effect at a given time, that the tool automatically compares with the current version and warns about changes/deletions, and that it refuses non-local-tax laws to prevent partial-matching errors. This adds substantial context beyond the schema, though it does not describe the exact return format or edge cases like missing versions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the supported-law list is presented as a compact enumeration. Every sentence provides either scope, usage, or behavioral context with no redundant content, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, version selection logic, comparison behavior, supported law scope, and rejection policy. It does not explain the 'oc' parameter (which also lacks a schema description) or the precise return structure, but the phrase '조문 본문' and the warning behavior make the output fairly predictable, so the description is highly 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?

Schema description coverage is high at 83%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that year/efYd select the version in effect at that point ('year/efYd로 그 시점 시행본을 선택') and by listing acceptable lawName values (supported laws). This enriches the understanding of these key parameters beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with '지방세 관계법의 시점별 조문 본문' (time-specific article text of local tax laws), which specifies the exact resource and the time-scoped retrieval. It enumerates the supported local tax laws, clearly differentiating this tool from sibling tools like get_ordinance_text (ordinance text) or get_local_tax_decision (decisions).

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 states that only the listed local tax laws are supported and explicitly says non-local-tax laws are rejected without fallback ('지방세 관계법이 아니면 폴백 없이 거부한다'), providing clear exclusion criteria. It does not, however, name alternative tools for non-local-tax queries, so explicit alternatives are missing.

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