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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description need not restate it. It does add genuine non-schema context: results are lookup-only, copyright rests with the issuing body, and the source URL must be cited in responses – a real behavioral obligation. It omits any note on result size or pagination for a full-list operation.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the returned-field list is compact. The copyright/citation sentences are somewhat verbose but carry legitimate licensing context rather than filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (number, title, paragraph count, URL) and the domain scope, which is enough for an agent to call and consume it. The only gap is the absence of any statement about result volume or pagination for a 'full list'.

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% and the single 'domain' enum already documents its values and default (ifrs). The description only alludes to domain scoping via '도메인의' and adds no format or default guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('기준서 전체 목록' – full list of standards) and enumerates the returned fields (번호·제목·문단수·URL), which distinguishes it from the singular get_standard sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with the other retrieval tools (search, get_topic).

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 only implied: as a '전체 목록' listing tool, an agent can infer it is for browsing/discovery before drilling into a specific standard. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like search or get_standard, and no exclusion conditions.

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