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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful scope information — only 현행 (current) laws are indexed, plus the specific org coverage — and explains the id-to-get_entity chaining path. It does not describe result shape or pagination, but adds real context beyond annotations.

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 short sentences: purpose, scope, and next step. Front-loaded with the action, no filler, every sentence earns its 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the essentials an agent needs — what is searchable and that results carry an id used by get_entity. It stops short of describing the return payload or the default/maximum result count, which for a search tool is a minor 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 coverage is 67%: query semantics (space-separated terms are AND-ed) and the type enum are documented in the schema. The description adds only a general 'search by name' framing and says nothing about the type or limit parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. 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+resource (이름으로 대상 검색) and enumerates the searchable scope (현행 법령, 소관부처, 한국은행). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_entity by casting that tool as the follow-up detail lookup rather than a competing search.

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?

Clearly tells the agent when to reach for this tool (finding an entity by name) and what to do with the result (pass id to get_entity). There is no explicit when-not condition or contrast with the sibling search_articles/search_facts, but the workflow routing is unambiguous.

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