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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description's extra detail is additive and valuable. It clearly warns that summary fields are machine-written and must never be quoted as statute text, explains conditional fields, and notes that related_articles carry their own source_urls. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is efficiently front-loaded: the core action, the condition for use, and the key instruction about verbatim quoting all come first. The longer field list earns its place because there is no output schema, and each field is labeled with what it is and how it should or should not be used.

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 must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: verbatim text, section_path, clauses, summary vs statute, answers_in_text, and related_articles. It also covers citation behavior and the source_url. An agent has everything needed to call this tool and interpret its results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both required parameters already explained (law name in Persian and article number). The description reinforces the meaning by giving an example ('ماده ۱۰ قانون مدنی') but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the VERBATIM text of a specific article'. It also states the precondition — knowing the law and article number — which clearly separates this from broad article search. The title reinforces the exactness of the lookup.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('when you already know the law and the article number') and instructs agents to quote the returned text rather than paraphrase from memory. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases where the article number is unknown, so it lacks a fully explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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