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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says only that records are returned. It does not state whether the call is read-only (implied but not declared), how the fact/lineage data is structured, whether missing or uncited articles return empty or error, or any auth/rate constraints — all of which matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler and the resource definition front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded; the shortfall is under-specification, not verbosity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the input contract and the shape of the returned fact/lineage records. As written it leaves the critical ambiguity between the two optional parameters and the response structure entirely unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It references only 'slug', leaving keyword_or_slug completely undefined in both schema and description, and with zero required parameters it gives no guidance on whether the two are alternatives, whether both may be passed, or which takes precedence.

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 ('반환합니다') and resource ('검증 팩트(F-xx)와 1차 공식 출처 계보') scoped to an article slug, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_fact or search_verified_facts. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the level of specificity is high.

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?

The phrase '특정 아티클 슬러그가 인용한' implies the trigger (you have an article slug and want its cited facts), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the seven siblings such as search_verified_facts or get_fact. Selection between this and the fact-lookup tools is left entirely to inference.

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