read_open_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: nonpublic files are not downloaded, provider failures are explicit, the download goes through a privacy-filter workflow, and HWP extraction is limited to page=1. These are genuine operational constraints an agent needs.

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 purpose, which is good, but the prose is telegraphic and dense ('q/page focus extraction; HWP page=1 only') and the sentence 'never infer missing budgets' is oddly placed for a document-reading tool, adding noise relative to signal.

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?

There is no output schema, so mentioning that sourceId is returned and enables build_research_brief is valuable. However, with four parameters, a required 'url', and no schema descriptions, the definition is not complete enough about inputs and return shape for an agent to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains fileId (download trigger), q/page (focus extraction, HWP page=1 only), and mentions the returned sourceId, but leaves the required 'url' parameter and its expected format entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Read open.go.kr document metadata and available attachment IDs') and adds scoped capabilities (download via fileId, extract PDF/HWP/HWPX). It distinguishes itself from pure search tools but does not clarify how it differs from the similarly named siblings research_open_document and read_official_source.

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?

Gives implied usage: pass a fileId to download, use sourceId to feed build_research_brief. But it never states when to choose this over search_open_documents or research_open_document, so the selection logic among the many open.go.kr siblings is left to inference.

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