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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses auth requirements (KEY REQUIRED) and a rate limit (20/day), which a bare schema would not convey. It says nothing about output format, whether questions are cached, or how many are returned, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short and front-loads the critical operational metadata before the purpose. The bilingual Korean/English repetition is redundant but conventional for this toolset and does not obscure the message.

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 simple one-parameter generator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and operational constraints adequately. Missing output shape is acceptable here since no output schema exists, and only the lack of sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (max 500 chars), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntactic or format guidance beyond restating that it takes a query, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: generates follow-up legal questions for a given query. This is clear and distinguishable from generic responders like ask or search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as chat_leader or generate_document, which could overlap in 'generate content' territory.

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 bracketed metadata gives operational constraints (KEY REQUIRED, free, 20/day), but the description never says when to use this rather than ask, ask_expert, or chat_leader. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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