조문 원문 읽기

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is added behavior — and it delivers: asOf reaches past and future in-force versions, scheduled-but-not-yet-effective amendments trigger an attached warning, and omitting article silently changes the return type to a TOC. Pagination via cursor is left to the schema, and no note is given on behavior for an unknown law/article.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is fetched, what asOf does plus its warning side effect, and the TOC fallback. The core retrieval statement is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 does cover the realistic return shapes (provision text, TOC, amendment warning), which is the important part for a 5-parameter read tool. It does not address failure modes (unknown law name, article out of range) or how the [MORE] cursor interacts with the TOC mode, 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; the description still earns credit by explaining that article's absence switches output to a TOC and that asOf can address future versions, not just historical ones. It adds no syntax help for article/paragraph beyond the examples already in 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?

"법령의 특정 조문(및 항) 원문을 가져옵니다" names a specific verb (가져오다/read) and resource (조문 원문) with clear scope (특정 조문 및 항). It also distinguishes the degenerate mode (article 생략 → 목차) that siblings like find_statute or compare_revision do not offer.

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 states the two operating modes and when to use each: supply article for text, omit it for the article table of contents, and use asOf for a historical/future version. It does not explicitly route the agent away from siblings such as find_statute for discovery or trace_amendments for amendment history, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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