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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: B (적용지침) and BC (결론도출근거) paragraph tokens are auto-resolved, and results are query-only with an attribution obligation to cite the source URL — neither is derivable from the schema.

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 usage example in the first sentence, followed by the token-resolution rule and the citation requirement. Four sentences, all relevant, though the copyright/attribution sentence is somewhat boilerplate relative to the core lookup instruction.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, example format, token behavior, and citation duty. Only gaps are error/empty-result handling and explicit sibling routing, which are minor here.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by showing the std/paras value shapes and, importantly, explaining that paras entries with B/BC prefixes are auto-interpreted — semantics the schema's generic '문단 번호 목록' does not convey.

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 (기준서의 특정 문단) and narrows scope to lookup by paragraph number, with a concrete example (std='1116', paras=['22','B34']). It implicitly differs from get_standard (whole standard) and search, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 'specific paragraphs by number' framing, so an agent can infer this is for targeted paragraph retrieval. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_standard or search, nor what to do if a paragraph number is unknown or invalid.

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