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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with a 'one entry per law' deduplication guarantee and the exact per-result fields (current value, valid_from, sentence, id) — important since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/limit behavior and result ordering.

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: what it finds, then the covered domains, then the return shape, then the alternative. Each sentence carries information, though the enumerated domain list is slightly verbose for a single-sentence idea.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the valid_from semantics, and it covers scope plus the get_fact escape hatch. It stops short of describing result limits/pagination, which matters for a search tool defaulting to 20 (max 50).

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 and category documented, limit not). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema — it never explains limit, result ordering, or how query tokens combine. With mid-range coverage, the schema does most of the work and the description neither compensates nor regresses.

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 ('지금 참인 사실(상태)을 찾습니다') and then enumerates the actual domains it covers (economic indicators, laws to be enforced, current law versions, one entry per law). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like search_entities or search_articles without opening any schema.

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: '자세한 이력은 get_fact로 보세요' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other search_* siblings (search_entities, search_articles) or how category/query should be chosen to narrow results.

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