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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses return content (full original text, bilingual KO/EN) and asserts the tool's authoritative role, but it does not state what happens on invalid country names, missing treaty partners, or nonexistent article numbers, and the read-only nature is only implied by 반환한다. Adequate but with a clear gap around edge-case and failure behavior.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the core function, the second adds a task-level usage directive. Function is front-loaded and there is zero redundant or filler content.

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 simple 2-param read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the main essentials: what is returned (full original article text), in which languages, and the authoritative use case. Minor gaps remain: no error/not-found behavior, and no workflow hint that list_treaties/search_treaties should be used first to discover treaty names.

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% — both country (체결국 한글명 with example '미국') and article_number (조번호 with examples '제12조', '12') are already documented with formats and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (반환한다/returns), resource (특정국 조세조약의 조문 원문 전체/full original article text of a specific country's tax treaty), and scope (Korean and English versions). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_article and get_annex through the explicit 'tax treaty' framing, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 second sentence provides an explicit when-to-use directive: '제한세율 등 정확한 수치는 반드시 이 도구로 원문을 확인할 것' — agents should route to this tool for authoritative verification of precise figures. However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., search_treaties for discovery or get_article for non-treaty articles).

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