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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them — that interpretations are non-binding reference material that may later change — but says nothing about response size, missing/removed interpretations, or error behavior when an id is invalid.

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 tight sentences: what you get, why to be careful with it, and how to supply the id. The most decision-relevant fact (the id source) is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval tool this is complete: the description names the returned fields in lieu of an output schema, states the domain caveat, and removes the one likely id-confusion failure mode.

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 description restates the schema's own id note nearly verbatim ('the number from search_interpretation results (not the item number 안건번호)'), adding no new meaning. Per the high-coverage baseline this lands at 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Korean statutory interpretation') and enumerates the returned sections (질의요지, 회답, 이유). The caveat that this is not law and the pointer to search_interpretation separates it from the get_tax_interpretation sibling corpus.

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 a clear workflow prerequisite: the id must come from search_interpretation results, and it explicitly warns against passing the 안건번호 item number. It also frames when the content is appropriate to rely on ('reference material, answers to individual questions, may change later'), though it never names an alternative tool to use when a binding statute is actually required.

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