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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: case-number queries are hoisted to the front with 주문·원심·환송 후 판결 appended. The caveat that keyword hits are unverified against current law is a valuable reliability disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: scope enumeration, query-form guidance, and the citation caveat. The most decision-relevant information (what corpus this searches) is front-loaded with 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?

For a 2-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, query construction, ranking special-cases, and a caveat about result validity. Only a hint about result shape/pagination is missing, which is minor given annotations and the simple surface.

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 50% — limit is documented in-schema but query is not. The description compensates by explaining query semantics (single keyword preferred, case-number format with two concrete examples). It does not discuss limit, but that gap is already filled by the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("판례·불복 결정례를 전문검색한다") and then enumerates exactly which corpora are covered (court precedents, Tax Tribunal decisions, NTS 심사청구/이의신청/과세전적부심사). This clearly separates it from sibling search tools like search_articles, search_interpretations, and search_tax.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: a single core keyword works best, and a case number (with example formats 2015두41937, 조심2020서8493) triggers special ranked behavior. It also warns that keyword hits are not verified citations to current statutes. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for those cases, so 4 rather than 5.

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