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), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: whitespace/punctuation are normalized before comparison, the verdict taxonomy, and fallback behavior returning the closest sentence and paragraph. The copyright/attribution sentence adds an output-usage constraint. Doesn't describe pagination/rate behavior, but the bar is lower given 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-loads the core comparison behavior, then layers in matching semantics and the para-omission rule efficiently. The closing copyright/attribution sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place as an agent-facing output constraint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns — and it does, listing verdict labels and the returned nearest sentence plus paragraph. Complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it omits any statement on scoring/output shape beyond the labels.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description's note that omitting para searches the whole standard merely restates the schema's para description. No additional syntax or examples are supplied beyond what the schema provides.

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 (대조/compare) and two concrete resources (기준서 문구 인용 vs 회계위키 원문), and enumerates the judgement outcomes (exact/near/partial/mismatch). This clearly separates it from the retrieval siblings (get_paragraphs, get_standard, search).

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 gives useful context — the para-omitted case searches the whole standard, and mismatches still return the nearest sentence — but it never says when to prefer verify_quote over siblings like get_paragraphs or search. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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