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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add rendering and scale facts — it does: annex tables are returned 'line by line' as text, and a notice body is chunked at 15,000 characters per page. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g., unknown rule name) or whether an outline is truncated.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the default case (name only) comes first, then each optional parameter's effect, then the constraint and the special case. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is filler.

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 partly discharges the burden by sketching each return shape (article list plus annex list, article text, text-rendered annex). Still missing are the outline's exact form, how many pages exist for a long annex, and error behavior — minor but real gaps for a 5-parameter fetch 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the mutual exclusion of article and annex, that page means annex page normally but body page for a notice without articles, and that keyword matches on annex/notice-body lines with two lines of surrounding context.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a Korean administrative rule in force') and enumerates the three retrieval modes (outline, article, annex), which makes the tool's behavior distinct. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, search_rule, leaving the search-vs-fetch boundary to be inferred.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: 'With only name: an outline', 'with article: that article's text', 'with annex: the annex', plus the exclusion 'article and annex cannot be combined' and the notice special case. The gap is that it never says when to use this instead of search_rule or get_article.

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