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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the BYOK/auth requirement (own OC from open.law.go.kr, Korean real-name verification), the availability of a demo key, and the current vs. superseded version distinction in results.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and what is returned before the operational caveats. The heavy parenthetical nesting slightly slows parsing, but 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (id, mst, ministry, dates, status), and it covers the non-obvious auth requirement an agent would otherwise fail on. Nothing needed to invoke this 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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the _apiKey sourcing and the status/pagination semantics. The description adds only the _apiKey BYOK note, which the schema also carries, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search South Korean national statutes by title keyword'), names the authoritative source (국가법령정보, Ministry of Government Legislation), and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from kr_law_article/kr_law_history by explaining that mst is the version id passed to those tools.

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?

Gives clear context: use this to find a law by title keyword, then pass the returned mst to kr_law_article/kr_law_history. It also notes the status enum's limitations ("historical" still returns the general list; filter client-side). It never explicitly says when NOT to use it, but the sequencing guidance removes most ambiguity.

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