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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds non-obvious context beyond them: the content is full text, it is licensed by the issuing body, and citations must include the source URL. It still omits return shape/pagination, hence not 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 the lookup purpose in the first clause, followed by the slug-source hint and a compliance sentence. Dense but no filler; the citation/copyright sentence is boilerplate yet defensible for a legal-content 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent it receives full text for a given slug, plus the citation obligation, which is the operationally important part. Nothing else is needed to call a two-parameter, fully documented read tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes one step further by explaining the provenance of the required slug (search result or URL path segment), which the schema only illustrates with an example. The optional domain enum is left to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (전문 조회) and a specific resource type (질의회신·감리지적사례), which is enough to distinguish it from list_audit_cases (a listing) and search (discovery). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_standard or get_topic, but an agent can tell what content this returns.

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 documents where the required slug comes from ('search 결과 또는 페이지 URL 마지막 경로'), which is a genuine prerequisite and implies calling search first. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_topic/get_standard or any when-not condition.

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