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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add what they cannot: it discloses truncation at 6,000 characters per call and continued reading via offset. Not stated: what happens when the annex number does not exist or how the continuation value is signalled.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it returns, when to reach for it, and how paging works. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers return content (annex body text), the reason to call it, and the pagination limit. Failure behavior on a missing or ambiguous annex number is the only notable gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about offset: it exists because long tables are paginated in 6,000-character chunks, which explains how to use it rather than just what it is.

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 ('특정 별표·서식의 본문을 반환한다') and ties it to annex/form body text, which separates it cleanly from get_article (article text) and search_annexes (searching). An agent knows exactly what it gets back 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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition: use it when an article delegates via '별표 N에 따른다' to check tax rates or threshold amounts. That is a genuinely useful routing cue, but it never names alternatives such as search_annexes or states when not to use this tool.

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