law_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: response tags and identifier parameters vary by genre, and the tool is essentially a static table. It still does not describe the exact output structure or size, but with zero parameters and read-only semantics the burden is modest.

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 with no redundancy; the first line front-loads the core purpose, and the second explains why the tool exists. The bold emphasis on not inferring from names is purposeful and 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?

For a zero-parameter reference tool, the description covers the key content areas: supported genres, per-genre schemas, cautions, response tags, and identifier parameters. It could mention how the table should be used with sibling tools, but the sibling list and implied routing make this 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?

The tool has no parameters and the schema has no properties, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description also correctly focuses on the tool's role rather than inventing parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a reference table listing supported genres ('갈래') with their actual schemas and cautions. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings by framing itself as a lookup/metadata tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate which sibling tools it supports.

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 implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs per-genre schemas, response tags, or identifier parameters and cannot infer them from names. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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