check_setup

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

Without annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects: it performs a live check by making an API call, and distinguishes between error types to guide next steps. It doesn't mention side effects like rate limits, but the behavior is well-described for a read-only verification.

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?

Two sentences are highly concise and front-loaded; the first sentence states the core function, and the second adds context without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage order. It does not describe the output format, but for a zero-param setup check, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and usage. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'LAW_API_KEY 라이브 검증' (live verification of LAW_API_KEY) and explains it checks operation by querying a statute. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are search or analysis tools.

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 description explicitly says to call this tool first ('처음 시작할 때 가장 먼저 호출'), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not describe alternatives or when not to use, which is acceptable for a simple setup verification tool.

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