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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: precedents are decisions on individual cases, are not law, and may later change — an important caveat for an openWorldHint source. It does not describe pagination or size of the full text, which is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned components, then the caveat, then the parameter note. The only inefficiency is the final sentence, which largely duplicates the input schema's parameter description rather than adding to it.

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 has to carry return-value meaning, and it does by listing the four sections returned. Combined with the caveat about precedents not being binding law and the id provenance hint, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 single parameter's description already explains that id is the digits from a search_case result, not the case number such as 2018다287034. The description restates this same point with no additional semantics, so the schema does the work and a baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get a Korean court precedent") and enumerates the returned components (판시사항, 판결요지, 참조조문, 판례내용). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_article, get_interpretation, and get_law_status, which cover other document types.

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 establishes the retrieval flow by stating the id comes from search_case results, which tells an agent to search first and fetch second. It also warns that precedents are reference material that may change, which frames appropriate reliance. However, it never states when *not* to use this tool (e.g., when get_article would be the better source for statutory text).

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