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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is in return-shape disclosure: per-item result/error for batches, provenance fields (source URL, current-through/vintage, retrieval time), parent path and prev/next siblings. It also makes a strong fidelity promise that publisher editorial matter is never carried, which is meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of describing failure behavior for nonexistent ids or truncation of very long sections.

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 retrieval modes, then the batch semantics, then the return contents. The final sentence about editorial matter is slightly editorial in tone but earns its place as a fidelity guarantee; overall there is little waste.

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 does good work describing what comes back. But for a zero-required-parameter tool with three mutually exclusive-looking inputs, it never states that at least one must be supplied, nor how missing sections or oversized sections are handled.

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 100% and each parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that references accepts ids or complete citations and is capped at 10, but adds no exclusivity rule or precedence for when id and citation are both supplied.

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 and resource: 'Fetch full verbatim text by id or citation' plus batch mode. It is clearly a retrieval-by-identifier tool, distinguishable in spirit from law_search, but it never names the sibling tools so the contrast is only implicit.

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?

'by id or citation, or pass references for a batch of up to 10' lays out the three invocation modes, which implies lookup-after-search usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs law_search/law_for_location guidance, no statement of mutual exclusivity between id, citation and references, and no note on which mode to prefer.

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