조문 개정 흐름

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context that supplying an article changes the output to mark textual-change points, but it does not describe return shape, pagination behavior, or result size.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior and followed by the intended use case. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and intended use. It could be stronger if it briefly explained the pagination or output format, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 the schema already explains law, depth, cursor, and article. The description adds meaning for article by saying it triggers marking of changed versions, but it does not add syntax or constraints 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?

The description states a specific action: listing statute versions by enforcement date and, when an article is supplied, marking when that article's text changed between recent versions. This clearly identifies the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as compare_revision or read_provision.

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 gives a clear use case: checking applicable provisions by attribution year. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer when compare_revision or read_provision would be better.

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