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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real operational detail beyond them: 15,000-character page chunking, the fact that annexes and forms have no body, and that HWP is unsupported. It does not say what happens on an invalid page number or a failed PDF fetch, but the substantive behavior is disclosed.

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 primary behavior, then the pagination limit, then the annex/forms exception and its filtering options. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical Korean term is the only mild bloat.

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 still explains what comes back (summary, order, reasons sections), how large a page is, and how the annex path differs, which is enough to call the tool correctly. Remaining gaps, such as end-of-document signaling or error cases, are minor.

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 already 100%, yet the description still adds meaning: file is only for annexes/forms and must be the PDF link, page maps to 15,000-character chunks, and keyword is scoped to annexes with two lines of surrounding context. That is genuine semantic value over the schema text.

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 concrete verb and resource (fetch full text of one Korean decision, interpretation, or other material) and ties it to the search_documents result set. It never distinguishes itself from similarly named siblings like get_case or get_interpretation, so an agent could hesitate between them, but the scope of returning an entire document body is clear.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a follow-up to search_documents (id, source, file all come from a search result) and gives a clear routing rule for annexes/forms: use the PDF file link rather than expecting a body. It lacks an exclusion statement against overlapping siblings such as get_case or get_interpretation.

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