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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuinely useful disclosure: the `status` values and, critically, that under_review text is deliberately not displayed and that revoked content may come back without usable text. It stops short of saying what happens when a provision simply does not exist.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The status enumeration is long but each value carries real decision weight for the agent, so almost nothing is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return shape, and what it does explain (status semantics, official link) covers the highest-risk ambiguity around missing or divergent text. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the two sibling tools, which matters for a six-parameter 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% and every parameter carries its own example, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The description adds the legal-hierarchy framing (artigo, parágrafo, inciso, alínea) that conceptually maps to article/paragraph/item/subitem, but it never mentions the `law` alias/URN form or the ADCT `block` parameter.

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 states a specific resource precisely: the text of an article, paragraph, item, or subitem of Brazilian federal law, plus an official link. It is clear what is returned, but it never contrasts itself with its siblings get_precedent and search_legislation, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Use is only implied: the tool fetches one known provision rather than searching. There is no explicit statement such as 'use this when you already know the law and article; use search_legislation to find them', nor any mention of when get_precedent would be the right choice.

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