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

With annotations already covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds useful behavioral detail: document-number queries return that document first, and keyword hits should not be treated as verified citations. It does not describe rate limits or output structure, but it provides meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, query behavior, and a reliability caveat. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough guidance to invoke it correctly and understand the key caveat about citation verification. It could say more about the shape of returned results, but the essential invocation context is complete.

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%, with limit documented in the schema but query undocumented there. The description compensates well by explaining that query can be an issue sentence or a document number and by describing the resulting ranking behavior when a document number is used.

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 verb and resource: full-text search of interpretation cases from the National Tax Service, Ministry of Government Legislation, and Ministry of Public Administration and Security. This distinguishes the source material from sibling tools like search_cases or search_articles, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 a clear usage context: confirming the tax authority's position on practical issues. It also explains that either an issue sentence or a document number can be used, and warns that keyword hits are not verified citations to current statutory provisions. It does not explicitly route users to alternatives such as verify_citations, but the context is clear.

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