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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior. It reveals that the tool returns verbatim text and conditionally provides several fields ('when we hold them'), and importantly warns that summary fields are 'machine-written explanations — NOT statute text; never quote them as law'. This is a substantial transparency caveat beyond mere operation.

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?

Every sentence is purposeful: core action, usage condition, anti-paraphrase rule, source URL requirement, and a clear list of return fields with an important caveat. It is dense but well-structured, and the front-loaded purpose is immediately clear. No filler or 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating all potential return fields and their meanings, including warnings about summaries not being law. It covers the main lookup behavior, optional fields, and related articles with URLs. This is complete for a lookup tool.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with Persian examples. The description adds contextual use ('e.g. «ماده ۱۰ قانون مدنی»') but no additional parameter syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'verbatim text of a specific article', with a clear condition 'when you already know the law and the article number'. This distinctly separates it from sibling search tools like search_law_articles, and includes a concrete example «ماده ۱۰ قانون مدنی».

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know the law and the article number') and for what purpose ('verify wording before quoting it'). The directives to 'never paraphrase' and 'link the source_url' are strong usage constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the condition implies using search when unsure.

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