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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (returns body text) and implies read-only by using the verb '반환한다'. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details such as error handling, output format, or whether any side effects exist. For a simple read operation this is adequate, but the lack of explicit read-only declaration or output description keeps it at a minimum.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, and the second gives the use case. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks mention of return format or error cases, but for a basic retrieval tool, these are minor and not critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 100%, with both parameters (law_name, annex_number) fully described including examples. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 returns the body text of a specific annex or form ('특정 별표·서식의 본문을 반환한다'), specifying both the verb and the resource. It also explains the context ('조문이 '별표 N에 따른다'로 위임한 세율·기준금액을 확인할 때 사용'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_article and search_annexes.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: when an article delegates checking tax rates or standard amounts to an annex. This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Thus it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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