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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with return-content traits: the plain-English one-liner, attached tables, the version date, and the official Korean source link, plus the honest caveat that tables appear only 'once they are translated' — a conditional-availability disclosure an agent would otherwise miss.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource before enumerating the return payload. It is dense with nested parentheticals but no clause is filler; slightly tighter phrasing would earn a 5.

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 only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget on describing what comes back, including version date and source link. It stops short of the edge cases a caller will hit — untranslated articles, article not found, decree vs statute resolution — but the essentials are present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine delta: the law may be given by name as well as by slug, whereas the schema only documents the slug form. The article-number format is left to the schema's example, which is sufficient.

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 names a precise resource and scope: the full English text of exactly one article of a South Korean statute or enforcement decree, plus its ancillary material. That scope implicitly separates it from search_law_articles and get_law_overview, but no sibling is named outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required article parameter and 'one article' framing tell an agent this is a targeted single-record fetch rather than a search. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no guidance on prerequisites such as resolving a slug via list_laws first.

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