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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently frames the operation as a read-only full-text search and adds corpus scale (14만+건). It does not mention return shape or rate limits, but the search nature is clear and not misleading.

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 short clauses with no filler: the first states the action and resource, the second states the use case. The most important information is front-loaded.

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, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is searched, how it is searched, and why it is used. A note about result fields would be helpful since no output schema exists, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and calling the 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?

The schema describes 'limit' with default and max values, but 'query' has no schema description. The description's '전문검색' clarifies that query is the full-text search expression, partially compensating for that gap. It adds no detail about the limit behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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' (full-text search) and names the exact resources: 국세청 질의회신 and 법제처 해석례. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling search tools like search_cases or search_articles even without explicit contrast.

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?

The description states the intended use: confirming the tax authority's position on practical issues (실무 쟁점의 과세관청 입장 확인). This provides clear context for when to choose this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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