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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: only rules in force are searched, query terms must be Korean, and administrative rules are agency-internal standards rather than laws; result pagination or format is not described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The Korean-language requirement and the administrative-rule-versus-law distinction are important enough to earn their place.

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 simple one-parameter search with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the critical language, scope, and domain boundary. It does not explain return contents or pagination, but the tool's complexity is low and no output schema is present.

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 already documents the single query parameter with an example. The description adds meaningful constraint that search terms must be Korean and are words in the rule name, though the parenthetical about type, ministry, and dates does not clearly map to additional parameters.

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 administrative rules in force, enumerates rule categories, and explicitly separates administrative rules from Acts/Decrees. An agent can distinguish this from search_law and related legal-search siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use this first when the official rule name is unknown and warns that administrative rules are not laws. It does not explicitly name get_rule as the alternative once the official name is known, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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