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 fully covered. The description adds only a content hint (annexes hold tables rather than article prose); it says nothing about result shape, ranking, or what happens at the limit cap. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by a single justifying sentence with compact parenthetical examples. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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 3-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly and to know why annexes matter. Minor gaps remain: no indication of what a hit looks like or how annex results relate to their parent law, which matters for a full-text search 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 description coverage is 100% — query, law_name (부분 일치), and limit (기본 5, 최대 15) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about search semantics (e.g., whether query matches table titles only or cell contents), so the 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 (법령 별표·서식을 전문검색한다) and implicitly differentiates from article search by explaining that rate tables, thresholds, limits, and classification tables live in annexes rather than 조문. It never names the sibling tools (search_articles, get_annex), so routing still requires the agent to infer which sibling to avoid.

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 a clear use context: reach for this when the value sought is a tax-rate table, threshold, cap, or classification table, with two concrete examples (간이세액표, 면세 미가공식료품 분류표). It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as search_articles for narrative text or get_annex for retrieving a single annex by ID.

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