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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what the card actually contains (verbatim revision reason, full changed text, effective-date clauses, cited line), which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and id source, then a compact enumeration of returned fields. The trailing EN line is a short translation that aids a bilingual catalog, though it is partly redundant with the Korean sentence.

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 usefully describes the card's contents, and the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent behavior. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though a note on behavior for an unknown or expired id is absent.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter carries a strict pattern (^chg-\d{6}-\d{8}$), but the description compensates by stating the id format prefix (chg-…) and its provenance from what_changes output. That is the key semantic an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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 ('변경 카드 하나를 받습니다' / 'Full verbatim change card by id') and enumerates the returned content: 개정이유 전문, 바뀌는 문구 전체, 시행일 조항, 이날 시행되는 조문, cite. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_article, get_fact, and get_entity, which retrieve different resource types.

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 routes the agent: the id comes from what_changes results ('what_changes 결과의 id(chg-…)로'), so the discovery-then-fetch workflow is unambiguous. There is no explicit when-not or alternative for single-card retrieval, but the sourcing instruction is clear context.

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