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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — the return is bilingual full text — and imposes a verification obligation for exact numbers. It does not say what happens for a missing country/article or how large articles are handled, so it stays at adequate rather than rich.

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 with zero waste: the return content comes first, the verification rule second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 correctly states what comes back (full article text, Korean and English) and when to trust it over other sources. Only the empty/not-found case is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a two-required-param read tool.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions with examples ('미국', '제12조'/'12'), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about accepted country-name forms or article-number formats beyond what the schema already states; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the full original text of a given country's tax treaty article, in both Korean and English. The '특정국 조세조약' qualifier separates it from domestic-law siblings like get_article, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the treaty-vs-statute split.

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 an explicit use condition: for precise figures such as 제한세율 (limited tax rates), the original text must be confirmed with this tool. That is a real routing directive rather than implied usage, though it offers no exclusion or named alternative for broader article lookups.

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