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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial non-annotation behavior: the full success response shape, the miss/error format with similar[] candidates, boundary behavior ('context expands within one part — boundaries return fewer items; not an error'), and the crucial '-N' suffix matching nuance with a concrete example. No contradiction with 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?

The description is organized into labeled sections — Purpose, Usage, Response, Rules — making it scannable, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is long, but every section earns its place given the tool's real complexity (key format quirks, boundary behavior, error handling). The slight Korean-English mixing is contextually appropriate for a Korean-titled MCP and not penalized.

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 present, the description carries the full burden of documenting return values — and the Response section does this thoroughly, covering the success structure, the items[] fields, the error/miss format, and routing to get_qna. Combined with complete invocation rules and boundary semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly. The section could be slightly tighter, but nothing essential is missing.

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% — both params have descriptions (unique_key format '1116-33', context default 2). The description reinforces and extends this with the Rules section: unique_key must be passed verbatim and never normalized, allowed non-digit keys (B58·6.1.1), and the suffix rule ('1109-B2.7' misses vs '1109-B2.7-1' hits — 12% of paragraphs). This critical key-format knowledge meaningfully augments the schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource+scope: '기준서 문단 전문을 앞뒤 문맥과 함께 반환합니다' (returns full standard paragraph text with surrounding context). The Purpose section further distinguishes it from siblings — 'a search snippet is never quotable evidence' positions it against the search tools, and 'related_qnas → get_qna' routes to that sibling. An agent can clearly tell this apart from get_qna, search_qnas, and search_standards.

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 Purpose section gives concrete trigger conditions ('To quote a found 문단 exactly', 'To check 조건절·예외 with neighbors') and the Usage section shows real invocation mappings ('1116호 33문단 원문' → unique_key='1116-33'). Sibling routing is explicit via 'related_qnas → get_qna'. It lacks a hard 'do not use when X' exclusion, but the contexts where this tool is the right choice are clearly implied and actionable.

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