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). The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: two distinct return modes depending on whether filters are supplied, plus the citation/copyright obligation. It does not describe pagination or ordering mechanics beyond '최근 순'.

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?

Core behavior (list, no-filter mode, fetch hand-off) is front-loaded in the first two sentences. The citation/copyright sentences are longer than the functional core but carry legitimate usage obligations, so they earn their place.

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 compensates by explaining both return shapes (filtered list vs. classification/counts) and that full text requires fetch. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, missing only minor details like default limit or pagination notes.

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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description recaps the filterable dimensions (계정·위반유형·기관·연도·키워드) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (감리지적사례 목록 반환) plus the filterable dimensions, and explicitly contrasts itself with the 'fetch' sibling for full case text. An agent can distinguish this list tool from fetch without opening either 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?

It explains a clear non-obvious calling mode (no conditions returns classification and counts) and routes the agent to fetch with an id for full text. No explicit 'when not to use' or mention of the other siblings (search, get_qna), but the primary alternative is covered.

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