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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return content (verbatim article text, paragraph/item structure, promulgation and enforcement dates, official link) and by emphasizing 'quoted verbatim', which tells the agent the text is not summarized or paraphrased.

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?

Two compact sentences: the return contents come first, the accepted input forms second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 usefully characterizes the returned article and its metadata, and it fills the gap left by the undocumented `law` parameter. For a simple two-parameter lookup tool this is close to sufficient; it could be strengthened only by a short usage cue.

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 only 50% (the `law` parameter has no schema description), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that `law` accepts official names, abbreviations such as 자본시장법, and common English names. The `no` parameter is already documented in the schema.

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 concrete resource (one article of a Korean statute) and states exactly what is returned: verbatim text with paragraphs and items, promulgation/enforcement dates, and the official link. The retrieval verb is implied rather than stated outright, but the scope is unambiguous and no sibling tool covers this domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint at usage is that certain input name forms are accepted, which is an input concern rather than a when-to-use rule.

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