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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that unpublished working text is labelled, states the credential requirement (none), and notes the cost (Free). It stops short of describing failure modes, size limits, or format of the returned text.

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 content is short, but the lead sentence is written as a first-person wish ('I want the full text...') rather than a tool definition, and the trailing metadata fragments ('Credential: none. Cost: Free. Source: Constitution 10.4.') are staccato and partly non-essential. Purpose is front-loaded, but the structure is choppy.

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 stating what comes back: the text in force, its publication status, and material for verifying the copy. That is sufficient for a single-parameter retrieval tool, though it omits error or edge-case behavior.

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 the single 'instrument' parameter is already documented with a regex and concrete examples (JUDICATURE_ACT, PD1). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description states a concrete retrieval action ('full text of the Constitution, an Act, a rule or a procedure document as it stands'), which distinguishes it from listing siblings like read_instruments. It does not explicitly name read_instruments as the alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrasing 'as it stands' and 'text in force' implies the use case (fetching the current authoritative version), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing appears in the description. The only pointer to read_instruments lives in the schema parameter text, not here.

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