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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful caveats: it is a full-text search and keyword hits are not verified citations to current provisions. This warns the agent about a non-obvious result characteristic. It could have disclosed more about response structure, but the key behavioral risk is addressed.

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 short sentences, all informative: function first, then use case, then an important caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it: source agencies, purpose, keyword-search behavior, and a critical limitation on citation validity. It does not describe the return format, but the caveat and scope are sufficiently complete for correct use.

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%: the 'limit' parameter is documented (default 5, max 15) but 'query' has only a type. The description compensates somewhat by framing the query as a full-text keyword search ('전문검색', '키워드 히트'), but it does not detail query syntax or formatting.

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 uses a specific verb ('전문검색한다') and clearly identifies the resource: interpretation cases from three named agencies. It also states the practical purpose (confirming the tax authority's position), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles or search_cases.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: '실무 쟁점의 과세관청 입장 확인에 사용.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools.

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