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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: this is full-text (전문검색) matching over non-tax statutes only, which tells the agent what kind of matching to expect and that tax-law hits will not appear here.

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, front-loaded with the scope constraint and followed by the use case. The parenthetical example list is compact and directly supports routing decisions, so no sentence is wasted.

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, fully documented read-only search with annotations, the description supplies domain scope and intent. It could say slightly more about what a hit contains (law name, article number) or result-ordering, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, with limit defaults/max, query phrasing advice, and law_name examples all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 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+resource ('비세법 참조 법령 조문을 전문검색한다') and explicitly narrows scope with '(세법 아님)', which implicitly separates it from the tax-law search siblings like search_articles and search_tax. It does not name a sibling directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives concrete when-to-use context: verifying premises behind real-estate and inheritance/gift tax issues (inheritance shares, rental-business registration, management-disposal approval, housing definitions). It lacks an explicit negative rule or a named alternative for the tax-law case, but the domain boundary is clear.

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