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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structural context: results are limited to inquiry purposes, copyright belongs to the publishing body, and the source URL must be cited — real behavioral/policy guidance absent from annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval action and id syntax before the usage policy. Each sentence earns its place, though the copyright/citation clause is somewhat verbose relative to a lookup tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return is full markdown text and explains the id taxonomy and citation requirement. Complete enough for a single-parameter fetch; the only gap is the missing disambiguation against the near-identical sibling getters.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is self-contained, so the baseline is high. The description still adds value beyond the schema by enumerating all four id prefixes (para/qna/std/article) and the corresponding entity types, whereas the schema example only shows 'para:'.

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 (조회/fetch) and resource (문단·질의회신·기준서 목차·실무해설의 전문 마크다운) keyed by id, with the id prefixes enumerated. The purpose is unmistakable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping get_paragraphs / get_qna / get_standard siblings.

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?

It establishes the entry condition ('search 등이 반환한 id로'), implying fetch is called after search to expand a hit into full text. However, it never says when to prefer fetch over the type-specific siblings (get_paragraphs, get_qna, get_standard), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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