条文を読む（時点指定可）

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read ('返します'), discloses the 2017-04-01 lower bound on asof, and adds a genuine behavioral trait: for current provisions it warns about scheduled amendments. It stops short of describing return format, article-scope boundaries (e.g., whether 附則/別表 are excluded), or any retrieval constraints.

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?

Four short sentences with the return behavior front-loaded, followed by the asof nuance and the use case. Efficient and well ordered, with no 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers purpose, temporal semantics, the use case, and the amendment-notification behavior. It is largely complete for a 3-parameter read tool, though it omits return-format details and the exact scope of what '本則の条' excludes.

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 schema already documents law, asof, and article formats and examples. The description reinforces the meaning of asof ('the version in force on that date') but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, 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 ('法令の条文（本則の条）を返します') and scopes it to main-body articles, which helps disambiguate. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces (e.g., law_history or compare_article).

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?

Gives a concrete use case: confirming the law that applied at the time of a disposition or application (行為時法). This clearly frames when asof matters, but provides no exclusions or pointers to alternative tools for related tasks like history comparison.

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