read_official_source

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: no OCR, max 300-page scan, six-result cap, HWP/HWPX citations being document-level with page=null requiring page=1, up to three official-domain redirects, and an untrusted-data warning. These are real operational constraints an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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?

Telegraphic and front-loaded with the verb and resource, then limits and edge cases. Every fragment carries information, though the clipped phrasing makes some sentences (HWP/HWPX citation rules) slightly harder to parse than a fuller sentence would be.

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 still names the return fields (sourceId, quoted text, PDF page numbers, official links) and covers format-specific caveats, page limits, result caps and redirect behavior. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain q (finds matching excerpts) and page (starts PDF scanning, bounded by the 300-page cap). The required url parameter's semantics (HTTPS go.kr only) are only implied by the format list rather than stated explicitly.

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 (Fetch) plus the resource (official HTTPS go.kr HTML, text PDF, HWP/HWPX), so the scope is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the generic read_open_document sibling. An agent can tell immediately this is the official-source-specific reader.

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 domain restriction (official HTTPS go.kr) and format list give clear context for when this tool applies, and the q/page hints describe the intended retrieval modes. It never names the alternative sibling (read_open_document) or states when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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