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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: results are for lookup purposes only, copyright vests with the issuing body, and the source URL must be cited — constraints an agent would otherwise not know.

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 purpose then retrieval scope, with licensing/citation boilerplate trailing. The copyright and citation sentences are slightly peripheral to invocation but are short and legally purposeful, so there is little waste.

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 correctly states the return format (full markdown of the document) and the id input contract, and adds citation obligations. Given a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is adequately complete.

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 id pattern is already exemplified in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating the four id namespaces (para:/qna:/std:/article:) and mapping each to a content type, which clarifies what argument shapes are valid.

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/retrieve) and resource (문단·질의회신·기준서 목차·실무해설 full markdown), and identifies the key (search-returned id). It is clear what comes back, though it never differentiates itself from the typed siblings get_paragraphs/get_qna/get_standard that appear to cover the same id prefixes.

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 tells the agent where the argument comes from (search 등이 반환한 id), which is a usable precondition. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this generic fetch over get_paragraphs/get_qna/get_standard/get_topic for a given id prefix, leaving the main 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.