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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld). It discloses backend-specific search semantics (조세심판원 AND vs 국세청·행안부 OR), that the tool silently auto-quotes whitespace queries for 국세청·행안부, and that detailed results are links into the taxlaw system rather than full text. That automatic query rewriting is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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, but the body is a dense run-on mixing English and Korean, internal jargon ('판정 쟁점플래그'), record counts (17,534건), measurement dates, and a copyright-law aside about 저작권법 §7 that does nothing to help an agent call the tool. The critical AND/OR warning is buried mid-paragraph behind an emoji.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should characterize returns; it only says results are link-only into 국세법령정보시스템, without describing result fields or pagination. Combined with the undocumented 'display' parameter, this is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the response shape.

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 compensate. It does so well for 'source' (four named corpora with counts and subject matter) and 'query' (semantics differ per source, auto-quoting), but 'display' — the result-count parameter — is never mentioned anywhere. Partial compensation only.

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 (search Korean tax rulings / tribunal decisions) and enumerates the four distinct corpora by name and ID (ntsCgmExpc, ttSpecialDecc, moisCgmExpc, expc), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_law and get_law_detail. An agent can tell immediately what domain this covers without opening the schema.

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 usage context ('판정 쟁점플래그의 D·E급 근거 탐색용') and an end-to-end workflow (전언 → 안건번호·회신일 대조 → D급 확정), and routes body retrieval elsewhere ('검증용 본문 수집은 scripts/fetch_rulings.py 담당'). However, it never names a sibling tool as a when-to-use alternative (e.g., search_law for statutes) or states when not to use this tool.

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