compare_old_new

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully bears the burden. It only states '조회' (retrieve), implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as input requirements (no required params), output format, potential side effects, or rate limits.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is in Korean, which may reduce clarity for some agents; still acceptably concise.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the comparison table contains, or what happens with an empty input. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '[비교] 신구법 대조표 조회' clearly indicates retrieving a comparison table of old and new laws. The tool name 'compare_old_new' reinforces this. However, the description does not specify the exact scope (e.g., full law text or specific provisions) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_articles' or 'compare_regulation_timeline'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling comparison tools (e.g., compare_articles, compare_regulation_timeline), there is no context to help an agent choose correctly.

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