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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result shape (matching articles with a short snippet and URL) and the fact that only English text is searched.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by return shape and the alternative-tool pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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, and the description adequately covers the return format (snippet and URL) plus the English-text constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though a note on result ranking or empty-result behavior would add polish.

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%, so all three parameters (query, law, limit) are already documented in the schema, including the law slug source and limit default. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope ('Keyword search over the English text of South Korean statutes and enforcement decrees') and names the database. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_law_article by clarifying that this returns only snippets, not full text.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_law_article when full text is needed, which is a clear alternative with a condition. It does not address when to prefer search_bills or list_laws, but the resource distinction (statutes vs bills) is implied by the scope statement.

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