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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no result-set semantics, no ranking or match-quality behavior, no statement about whether it returns statutes only, agenda types only, or a combined mapping. For a search tool the description carries the burden of explaining result semantics, and here it does not.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the three query forms are listed before the target outputs. It earns its length, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's centrality.

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?

One required parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations — but the description never says what comes back (a statute list? an agenda-type classification? a mapping?) or how to use those results downstream in tools like get_resolution_requirement or judge_resolution. With no output schema to lean on, the description should close that gap and does not.

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 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with Korean-language examples. The description does add a mild expansion, stating the query may be a free-form question, an agenda name, or a statute name — slightly broader than the schema examples. That is a marginal gain, not a substantive one, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a verb (찾는다) and two target resources (안건 유형, 법령), which is more than a name restatement. However, it never names the corpus being searched, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_statute, list_laws, or list_resolution_types that superficially appear to serve the same lookup need. The purpose is inferable but ambiguous at the routing boundary.

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?

It hints at what queries are acceptable (questions, agenda names, statute names) but gives no guidance on when to pick this over get_statute or list_laws. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no follow-up routing. An agent seeing an 18-tool sibling set would still have to guess.

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