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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the exact result payload (번호·제목·문단수·URL) and a citation obligation requiring the source URL to be surfaced to the user. It says nothing about result size or pagination, but the added licensing/citation behavior is real value beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the payload fields, then two short constraint sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the copyright/citation sentences could be compressed into one without loss.

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 correctly enumerates the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from related retrieval tools and any hint about result volume, but for a single-optional-param list tool it is close to sufficient.

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% and the schema itself documents the enum values and the 'ifrs' default, so the baseline is 3. The description conveys only that results are scoped to 'a domain', adding no enum values, defaults, or behavior for an omitted parameter beyond what the schema states.

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+scope: the full list of standards in a domain (번호·제목·문단수·URL). That is clearly distinct from get_standard/get_paragraphs conceptually, but the description never names the siblings, so the agent must infer the split between 'list all' and 'fetch one' on its own.

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?

The only usage statement is a licensing restriction ('조회 목적으로만 제공'), not tool-selection guidance. There is no indication of when to prefer this over search, get_standard, or get_paragraphs, which are all plausible alternatives for finding standards.

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