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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses the return shape per mode (outline vs. item text vs. keyword matches) and the source system, which is genuinely useful behavioral context; only pagination/limit behavior is left implicit in the schema.

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 purpose and the domain gloss, then the three mode rules, then the allowed-values list. Every sentence carries information, though the long enumeration of law names adds bulk that could have been trimmed or truncated.

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 five parameters, no output schema and no enums, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what each mode returns and which law names are valid. Remaining gaps, such as page-size limits and how outline entries are structured, are minor for a read-only lookup 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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains how the optional parameters change the result shape rather than just what they are, and it enumerates the 15 available laws, effectively constraining the required `law` value where the schema has no enum.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get Korean tax basic rulings") and defines the resource ("the National Tax Service's standards for applying tax law articles"), plus a clarifying note that "Basic rulings are not law". It distinguishes the resource conceptually, but does not name nearby siblings such as get_rule or search_rule to pin down the boundary.

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?

Gives explicit invocation contexts: law alone returns an outline, item returns that item's text, keyword returns matching items. That is clear operational guidance for choosing among the tool's own modes, but there is no statement about when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this one.

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