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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail of what the listing contains (key, Korean and English names, unit), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how large the full list is when unfiltered.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource declared first and the filtering capability second. No filler, nothing repeated, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 compensates well by naming the returned fields, and this is a simple single-optional-parameter read tool. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior when no prefix is supplied.

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 schema's own prefix description already supplies example values (rates, labor, jutaek, store). The description only restates that the prefix corresponds to a field, adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema; 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (Korean legal reference values), and enumerates the returned fields (key, Korean/English name, unit). It is clearly distinct from lookup siblings like get_param and get_article, though it never names the singular sibling get_param explicitly.

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 notes that results can be filtered by field key prefix, which implies when the prefix argument is useful, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or contrast with get_param for fetching a single value. Usage must be inferred.

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