부칙 (시행일·적용례·경과조치)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds useful search semantics (keyword matches 부칙 text mentioning a specific 조문), but says nothing about what comes back — full 부칙 text, matched excerpt, or structured fields — leaving the main behavioral question open.

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 tight sentences: what it finds, the decision it supports, then the narrowing option. No filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 six-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and filtering adequately. The one gap is return shape: an agent cannot tell whether results are verbatim 부칙 clauses or paraphrased, which matters for a legal-research tool.

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 all six parameters including law, asOf, limit, cursor, keyword, and promulgatedOn are already documented. The description only enriches 'keyword' slightly (filter to 부칙 that mention a given 조문), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: finds 시행일, 적용례, and 경과조치 within 법령 부칙, and gives a quoted example of 적용례 phrasing. It is clearly distinct from read_provision (본문 조문) by naming the 부칙 section explicitly, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when judging from which 사업연도/귀속연도 a revised provision applies, which is a concrete task trigger. It also explains the keyword-narrowing option, but gives no when-not guidance or named alternative among the many siblings (find_statute, read_provision, trace_amendments).

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