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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (article number, title, key) absent from any output schema, but says nothing about lookup failures, ambiguity handling for abbreviations, or ordering.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the lookup semantics stated first and the return contents in a trailing parenthetical. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but justified for an English-reading agent on a Korean-domain tool.

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 carries the return-value burden and does describe the article list contents. Combined with annotations covering safety, it is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the 'name' accepts both formal names and abbreviations (정식 이름·약칭), which the schema examples alone do not state.

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 and resource ('look up a Korean law by name and list its articles') and specifies the returned units (조·제목·key). It is clearly distinguishable from search_law and get_article by its name-based retrieval, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implied by 'by name (정식 이름·약칭)' – the agent can infer this is for when the exact law name is known – but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_law or get_article, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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