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 non-structured context: results are for lookup purposes only, copyright stays with the issuing body, and the source URL must be cited in responses — behavioral constraints absent from the schema and 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?

Purpose and returned groups are front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. The trailing copyright/citation sentence is dense boilerplate but does carry behavioral weight; overall efficient, though the single long sentence packs a lot of clauses.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the result groups and the optional similar-content group. Defaults (domain=ifrs, include_similar=false) live in the schema. A mutation-free lookup tool of this complexity is adequately covered, though pagination/limit behavior is only in the schema.

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 adds provenance the schema lacks — that the id comes from search·fetch results — and clarifies the id vs std+para alternative, giving real meaning beyond the property descriptions.

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 (반환) and resource (연결된 자료), then enumerates the exact relation types returned (인용한 질의회신·감리사례·실무해설, 근거 문단, 관련 토픽, 유사 자료). This is far more specific than the sibling names get_topic/get_paragraphs and lets an agent distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explains how to specify the basis (id from search·fetch results, or std+para) and notes include_similar is optional, which implies usage. However it never states when to choose get_related over get_topic, get_paragraphs, or fetch — the agent must infer the relationship-lookup role.

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