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

There are no annotations, and the description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) it has, or any constraints like rate limits. It simply states that it generates questions, which implies a safe operation, but this is not explicitly stated. Given the lack of annotations, the description should carry this burden but falls short.

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?

The description is extremely concise—just one sentence in both Korean and English. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. While it lacks additional details, the brevity is appropriate for such a simple tool, and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool: it names the operation and the parameter. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., a list of strings), any examples, or error behaviors. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, more details would be needed to fully understand the tool's behavior, but the core functionality is sufficiently conveyed.

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 parameter 'query' is described as 'Current user question (max 500 chars)', which adds practical meaning beyond the raw type (string). It clarifies that the input should be a user's question and imposes a length limit. This is helpful for the agent, though it could benefit from more details like expected format (e.g., plain text vs. structured).

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 clearly states the tool's function: generating relevant follow-up legal questions for a given query. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and identifies the resource (follow-up questions), making its purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'ask_expert' or 'search_legal_forms', though the unique purpose is still evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where it would be preferred over other tools. This is a significant gap, as the agent might not know whether to use 'suggest_questions' or another tool like 'ask_expert' for a given user query.

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