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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is full-text over annexes/forms and explains the domain, which is useful. However, it does not describe result format, ordering, pagination, or permissions, though these are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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 compact sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds high-value clarification with real examples. No wasted words and the key differentiator is visible immediately.

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 search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys what it searches, why it exists, and when it is the right tool. It could mention how to retrieve the full annex after finding it, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description adds domain-specific examples for what to search for, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('전문검색한다') and a clear resource ('법령 별표·서식'). It also gives concrete examples of what kind of content lives in annexes, which sharply distinguishes it from article-centric search tools.

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?

It clearly tells the agent when to use this tool—when searching for tax tables, standard amounts, limits, and classification tables that appear in annexes rather than articles. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_articles or state 'do not use for article text', so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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