별표·서식 찾기

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results carry file download links (HWP/PDF), which annotations cannot express, but it says nothing about result-set size or the limit=50 cap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the return value with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is also why usage and parameter guidance are absent.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the downloadable file links. For a 3-param read-only lookup with rich annotations, this is close to sufficient, losing points only for the unexplained byLawName search mode and pagination behavior.

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?

Coverage is 67%: query's example and byLawName's law-name-vs-form-name switch are documented in the schema, but limit is undocumented there. The description adds nothing to any parameter, so it neither compensates for the limit gap nor clarifies the two search modes beyond the schema.

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 (찾기) and two concrete resources (시행규칙 서식/신고서·명세서 and 별표/세율표·기준표), plus the output (HWP/PDF download links). This is clearly distinguishable in substance from a statute-text tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

No when-to-use framing, no mention of when to prefer find_statute or read_provision, and no prerequisites. The byLawName toggle changes the entire query semantics but the description gives no hint that this alternative search mode exists.

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