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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns the full body text and expects an unmodified link value, which is useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations already imply.

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 purpose stated first and the parameter source instruction second. There is no wasted text, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies what the tool returns, how to obtain the input, and the fact that the input should be passed unchanged.

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%, so the schema already documents the url parameter and its source as the link value from get_recent_notices/search_notices. The description adds only a slight nuance by saying 'pass it as-is' (그대로), which is minor additional guidance.

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 clearly states the tool returns the full body text of a notice given its URL, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_notices and search_notices, which list notices rather than fetch detail content.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by instructing the agent to pass the link value from get_recent_notices or search_notices results. It implies this tool should be used after those listing tools when full notice content is needed, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it.

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