법령용어 풀이

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include per-statute definitions plus 출처 and that 'law' filters the result set — behavior the annotations do not convey — but says nothing about result volume, ambiguity handling, or empty results.

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, zero filler: the core behavior and the optional-parameter effect, each front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage, the description conveys what is returned (definition and source per statute) and how the optional parameter changes it. Minor gaps only: no output shape detail and no guidance for terms with no definition.

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 50%: 'law' is documented in the schema and the description adds its filtering semantics, while 'term' has no schema description but is explained through the examples in the description. That partial compensation for the gap lands at the baseline for mid 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?

States a specific verb and resource: shows the legal definition and source of a term, per statute, with concrete examples (특수관계인, 사업연도, 내국법인). An agent can distinguish it from find_statute/read_provision, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 second sentence explains the effect of supplying 'law' (narrowing to that statute's definitions), which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternative statement or exclusion, e.g. versus find_statute when the term itself is unknown.

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