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 that — the Korean-language input constraint, the semantic nature of the results, and the ID-extraction rule needed to chain into get_case. It does not mention result volume, pagination limits, or ranking, so it stops short of fully describing the response behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the input constraint, then the conceptual caveat, then the chaining instruction. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is searched, language constraint, what results conceptually are, and how to use result IDs. It omits any indication of result-set size or what fields each result carries, which matters somewhat given the absent output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both `query` (Korean search terms with an example) and `page` (page number from 1, default 1) already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the Korean-language requirement for `query` and adds nothing about `page`, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Korean court precedents (판례) by keyword") and immediately distinguishes the resource from its lookalikes by clarifying that precedents are decisions on individual cases, not law — separating it from siblings like search_law, search_rule, and search_interpretation.

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 a clear precondition ("Search terms must be in Korean") and a concrete follow-up workflow ("Use the first number of each result ... as the id for get_case"), which tells the agent both how to call it and what to do next. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over search_law or search_interpretation, leaving that routing to inference from the "precedents are not law" line.

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