위임 법령 연결

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from 3단 비교 자료 and that article narrows output to related blocks, but says nothing about result volume or that pagination exists despite a cursor parameter.

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, no filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the article-filter behavior second. Slightly terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema needs the description to set expectations about the 3단 비교 structure and paging. The description hints at block structure but omits pagination behavior and does not describe what the compared tiers look like.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining the effect of article — it filters the returned blocks to those related to that article — which the schema only labels as '조문번호'.

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+resource: shows where a statute article is delegated or cited, using 법제처 3단 비교 data. This is clear enough to distinguish it from find_statute / read_provision, though the description never names those siblings 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?

Use is implied by '위임/인용' terminology and the delegated/cited modes, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_statute, read_provision or check_references. The agent must infer routing from the tool name.

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