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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the governing article along with the punishment and warns against relying on memory, providing useful behavioral context. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., unknown crime_type) or the role of crime_grade, but overall it is transparent for a read-only lookup.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose with specific punishment types and article citation; the second provides usage guidance and a safety rule. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, and a caution. It does not explicitly spell out the output format, but the name and description ('statutory sentencing range' + 'with the governing article') make it predictable. Minor lack of explicit alternative disambiguation prevents a 5.

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 clear parameter definitions: crime_type includes Persian examples and crime_grade is described as an optional 1–8 grade. The description adds only the 'Iranian crime' context, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 specifies 'Look up the statutory punishment for an Iranian crime' and enumerates punishment types (imprisonment, fine, lashes, قصاص, دیه) with the governing article. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_law_article, which likely retrieve generic legal text rather than sentencing ranges.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when the user asks what the punishment for a crime is, or for criminal-risk analysis.' It also adds a caution ('Never state a sentencing range from memory'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full 5.

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