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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it discloses the LAW_OC key requirement (an auth precondition) and describes the specific result fields to harvest, which is not in the annotations. It omits rate-limit and pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and a well-organized Args block plus workflow note. It loses a partial point for the English/Korean duplication, where the second sentence restates the first verbatim rather than adding information.

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 description compensates by naming the key result identifiers and explaining how they feed get_law_detail, which is exactly what an agent needs for chaining. Nothing critical is missing for a three-parameter search tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it largely does: it documents all three parameters, expanding target's enum values (law/admrul/ordin) with concrete meanings and noting display's maximum of 100. Only query and display remain fairly thin, but the target coverage is the substantive gap-filler.

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 (검색/search), the exact resource (Korean statutes, administrative rules, and ordinances), and names the database (law.go.kr). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_law_detail, the full-text sibling, by positioning this as the search step of a two-step workflow.

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 clear context for when to use it and explicitly routes downstream work to get_law_detail by telling the agent which result field to pass as doc_id. The target parameter's three modes are explained with real examples, though there is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative search tool callout.

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