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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: the LAW_OC authentication requirement, real-time lookup with an explicit cache prohibition, and the caveat that if no flexible-rate clause is found the standard rate applies but reduction ordinances still need separate review.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns blocks are cleanly delineated. The middle paragraph citing §14 and §111③ is longer than strictly needed for tool selection, though it does justify the cache-prohibition rule, and the English/Korean mixing makes scanning slightly uneven.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns block usefully enumerates the three return fields (ordinances, matched_articles, flexible_rate_found) and explains how to interpret flexible_rate_found. The only gap is error handling for a missing LAW_OC key, which is mentioned as required but not described as a failure mode.

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 0% and both parameter titles are bare, so the description must carry the load — and it does. It specifies that sido is the full metropolitan-level name ('서울특별시', '경기도'), explicitly rules out 시군구-level values (a real footgun for acquisition tax), and defines keyword's meaning and default ('취득세').

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 ('Look up a Korean city/county tax ordinance') with the exact scope (rate adjustments, local reliefs) and immediately notes the LAW_OC key requirement. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_law_detail and search_law because it targets municipal ordinances (조례) rather than statutes or rulings.

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 explicit timing guidance: '세액 판정 전 관할 조례 확인이 필요하다' (check the jurisdiction ordinance before determining tax amount) and the no-caching rule for frequently amended ordinances. It also routes to the downstream sibling (get_law_detail(target="ordin")), but never states when NOT to use this tool versus search_law/get_law_detail directly.

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