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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the return contract (section_path, clauses, summaries, keywords, topics, answers_in_text, related_articles) and a critical caveat that summary/summary_plain are machine-written and must never be quoted as law, plus the part-continuation behavior.

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?

It is one long paragraph but front-loaded and dense: purpose first, then usage directive, then return contents. Every clause adds information, though the parenthetical enumeration of return fields is somewhat heavy and could be tightened.

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 bears the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly, including which fields are answers, which are related articles with source_urls, and explicitly which fields are NOT statute text. An agent has everything needed to call it and quote responsibly.

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 100%, so law, article_number and part are already documented in the schema, including the part-continuation convention. The description adds citation-format examples ('بند ۲ ماده ۱۹۰') but little that the schema does not already carry, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Fetch the VERBATIM text of a specific article') and adds the operative precondition ('when you already know the law and the article number'). This distinguishes it functionally from search_law_articles, though the alternative is never named explicitly.

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?

It cleanly states the context of use (known law + article number, for verifying wording before quoting) and a strong directive ('Never paraphrase an article from memory'). It stops short of naming the sibling search tool or spelling out the inverse condition (use search when you don't know the number), so there is no explicit exclusion.

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