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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that what comes back is the raw DB source text (원문) rather than a summary, which is useful context. It says nothing about truncation or paging despite a 12000-character default limit, which matters for a full-text reader.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the coverage list; nothing is redundant. It is terse to the point of omitting behavioral detail, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Yet for a 5-parameter full-text retrieval tool with a default 12000 / max 24000 character limit, the absence of any note on truncation, paging, or how this generic getter relates to the type-specific siblings leaves gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 only 20% (only source_field has a description), so the description carries real weight here and does help by glossing evidence_type values in Korean (판례=case, 해석례=interpretation, 예규=ruling, 통칙=basic_rule, 별표=annex, 부칙=amendment, etc.). However, evidence_id format, limit, offset, and source_field are left entirely to the schema, and source_field is not mentioned at all.

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 (reads the raw DB text) plus the resource (evidence original text), and enumerates the nine supported evidence categories, which maps directly onto the evidence_type enum. It never distinguishes itself from the type-specific siblings (get_article, get_annex, get_treaty_article, get_article_history), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone when this generic getter beats the specialized ones.

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 only implied: 'reads the raw original text' suggests calling it after a search when full text is needed, and the type list hints at coverage. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no naming of alternatives such as get_article or get_annex, which overlap heavily.

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