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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the result includes the governing article and by instructing the model not to invent sentencing ranges from memory. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight, purposeful sentences: action and scope first, then trigger conditions, then a guardrail. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with solid annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what it returns (statutory punishment plus governing article), when to use it, and how to behave (never from memory). It could mention sibling alternatives, but complexity is low and no critical gap remains.

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 (crime_type and crime_grade). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning 'crime' generally, so it stays at the baseline without compensation.

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 ('Look up') and a specific resource ('statutory punishment for an Iranian crime'), enumerates the covered punishment types (imprisonment, fine, lashes, قصاص, دیه), and mentions the governing article. This clearly distinguishes it from generic law-article lookup or calculation tools.

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 the user asks what the punishment for a crime is, or for criminal-risk analysis.' It also adds a hard exclusion: 'Never state a sentencing range from memory.' It does not name sibling alternatives such as lookup_law_article, but the usage context is clear.

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