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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description complements this by disclosing the response semantics (✓ exists, ✗ missing, ⚠ ambiguous law name) and that validation is against current law. It does not cover latency, rate limits, or partial-match behavior, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result legend, and the usage condition follows immediately. The English sentence is largely a translation of the Korean, so there is mild redundancy, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 burden of explaining results and does so via the ✓/✗/⚠ legend. Combined with the schema's 6,000-character input limit, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though failure modes (e.g. non-citation text) are not described.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the expected citation shape ('○○법 제N조(의M)') that the input text should contain, which helps an agent format the call correctly.

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: verifying whether statute citations ('○○법 제N조(의M)') exist in current law. The distinctive output vocabulary (✓/✗/⚠) makes it clearly different from retrieval siblings like get_law or search_law, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 says when to use it: '법률 내용을 답하기 전에 인용을 이것으로 검증하면 헛인용을 막을 수 있다' – i.e. call this before answering legal questions to prevent hallucinated citations. It gives clear context but does not name or exclude alternative sibling tools (search_law, get_article) for related tasks.

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