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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: auto-interpretation of 적용지침(B) and 결론도출근거(BC) paragraph tokens, plus the attribution/source-URL requirement on citation. It does not describe batch behavior or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and a worked example, then the token-resolution behavior, then the copyright/attribution note. Every sentence is short and non-redundant, though the boilerplate legal sentence is the least essential part.

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 annotations covering safety, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple lookup; it even mentions that the response carries a source URL. It stops short of explaining return structure or how missing paragraph numbers are handled.

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 the baseline is 3; the description's examples for std and paras largely repeat the schema. The one genuinely additive note is that B/BC tokens in paras are auto-resolved, which clarifies accepted values beyond the schema's example list.

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 ('기준서의 특정 문단들을 번호로 조회') with concrete examples (std='1116', paras=['22','B34']). An agent can immediately tell it is a targeted paragraph lookup rather than a whole-standard retrieval, though it never names the get_standard sibling it most closely resembles.

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?

Usage is implied by the example and the by-number retrieval framing, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing (e.g., get_standard for full text, search for discovery, fetch) is given. The agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.

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