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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the authoritative status of the material ('not law but reference material') and a structural hint about the result format (first field is an id). It does not mention pagination limits or approximate result volume, which is a minor gap given the page parameter.

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 purpose, then the language constraint, then the caveat about legal weight, then the next-step pointer. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema beyond a necessary constraint reminder.

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 carries return-value disclosure and does so partially by explaining that each result begins with an id usable in get_interpretation. For a two-parameter, read-only search tool this is nearly complete; a note on paging through large result sets would close the remaining gap.

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% and the schema already documents both query (Korean terms with an example) and page (from 1, default 1). The description only restates the Korean-language requirement, adding no meaning about paging behavior or how many results a page holds, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search Korean statutory interpretations') and defines the resource inline (법령해석례: replies by the Ministry of Government Legislation on how laws apply), which separates it from search_case, search_law and search_tax_interpretation. It also points forward to get_interpretation, so the search-vs-fetch split is unambiguous.

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 usage constraint ('Search terms must be in Korean') and an explicit follow-up path ('Use the first number of each result as the id for get_interpretation'), which routes the agent correctly within the sibling set. It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. when the question is about tax rulings rather than statutory interpretations.

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