신구조문 대비

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description does add one real behavioral constraint beyond that, namely that only the most recent amendment is covered. It says nothing about how the comparison is structured or how results are paginated, even though a cursor parameter exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the filtering note. Nothing is padded, but the second sentence largely restates what the article parameter's schema description already says, so it earns only partial credit.

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 3-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers what is returned and the main scoping limit. It leaves gaps that matter for correct invocation: whether the comparison spans a selectable period or only the newest amendment, how cursor paging behaves, and what comes back when a law had no recent revision.

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 100%, so law and cursor are fully documented in the schema and the description repeats no value there. The only parameter the description touches on, article filtering, is already described in the schema with examples. This is the expected baseline when structured fields carry the load.

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?

States a concrete verb and a concrete resource: shows the pre/post wording of a statute's most recent amendment (신구조문 대비표). An agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling trace_amendments, which on its name alone sounds adjacent, so a reader is left to infer the division of labor.

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?

Usage is only implied: use it to see old-vs-new text, and use the article parameter to narrow to one provision. The '최근 개정' phrasing implicitly scopes it to the latest amendment, which is useful. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as trace_amendments or read_provision is given.

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