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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the credit cost (2 credits/call, cache hit 1) and the return fields (law ID, department, dates, link). This goes beyond the annotations and gives an agent useful operational context, though it doesn't discuss pagination limits or error behavior.

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?

The description is a single focused paragraph, starting with the cost, then the purpose, returns, and examples. There is no redundant filler, and every sentence serves a function.

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?

For a search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and provides examples. It does not mention sorting, result count behavior, or that the search is Korean-specific, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the read-only nature conveyed by annotations.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 33% (only the query parameter is described in the schema). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the page or per_page parameters; it only gives examples of query values. An agent would have to infer pagination semantics from the schema defaults alone, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool searches current Korean statutes (현행 법령) from the National Legal Information Center, returns specific fields (ID, department, dates, link), and gives concrete examples. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools which address real estate, balance, pricing, corporations, and addresses.

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?

While the description does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling list is thematically unrelated, making the intended usage obvious. The description conveys it is for searching current laws, and examples reinforce the query format. Still, an explicit 'use this for legal searches' guidance would be clearer.

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