법령 조문 조회

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). Beyond that, the description discloses real behavior: efYd auto-corrects to the version in force on the given date (including pre-renaming versions), jo='부칙' returns supplementary provisions from the latest promulgation, and jo accepts natural-language notation. These are meaningful behavioral details not in the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action first, then parameter-specific rules. The encoding examples (제10조의2→001002) earn their place by preventing a real error, though the paragraph is information-heavy for a single block.

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 4-param, no-output-schema retrieval tool whose schema fully documents parameters, the description covers how to specify the target law and version. It omits what the returned text looks like (structure, truncation) and the mst/lawId requirement contradicts the schema's empty required list, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that efYd is used both for prospective effective dates and for historical lookup dates with automatic version correction, and by restating the 6-digit JO encoding rule. It also notes mst/lawId are required, which conflicts with the schema's empty required array and could confuse an agent.

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 verb and resource (법령 조문 전문 조회 — retrieving the full text of statute articles) and clarifies that jo narrows to a specific article. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_law or get_annexes, so an agent relies on the title/resource to tell them apart.

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?

It gives useful conditions for the jo parameter (natural-language notation recommended, 부칙 for supplementary provisions) and for efYd (historical version retrieval). However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_law or get_decision_text — the usage advice is parameter-level, not tool-selection-level.

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