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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: whitespace/punctuation are ignored, the four-way verdict taxonomy (exact/near/partial/mismatch), and that a mismatch returns the nearest original sentence plus its paragraph. It also discloses the legal/citation constraint (copyright and required source URL attribution).

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?

The core matching behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and each sentence carries information. The closing copyright/attribution sentences are somewhat boilerplate but do impose a real obligation on the caller, so they are not pure waste.

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, yet the description fully describes what is returned: a match verdict from a defined taxonomy, and on mismatch the closest sentence and its paragraph. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 restates the para-omission behavior already documented in the schema ('생략 시 기준서 전체') and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides for std, quote, or domain.

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?

Specific verb (대조/verify) plus specific resource (기준서 문구 인용 vs 원문), which is clearly distinct from siblings like search, fetch, and get_paragraphs that retrieve rather than verify. An agent can tell what this tool does 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?

The description gives conditional behavior ('para 를 생략하면 기준서 전체에서 ... 찾는다'), which is genuine usage guidance for one parameter. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over retrieval siblings such as search or get_paragraphs, so routing guidance is only implied.

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