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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the returned text is 'in force' with publication status and copy-check info, that unpublished working text is labelled, and that no credentials are needed and there is no cost. It stops short of describing error/edge behavior, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loads the dual read/list behavior effectively, but the trailing 'Credential: none. Cost: Free. Source: Constitution 10.4.' metadata is boilerplate that dilutes the core message.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what a named call returns (text in force, publication status, copy-check info) and what an unnamed call returns (document list, versions, published flag). Adequate for a single optional parameter 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its format and that omitting it lists all. The description's restatement of the named/unnamed behavior adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an official legal document') and immediately covers the dual read/list mode. It explicitly differentiates behavior ('as read_instruments does'), so an agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use it when' clause enumerating the concrete cases (Constitution, Act, rule, procedure document, or listing them). No when-not guidance or naming of a contrasting sibling is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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