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 declares the return contents (original text, edition, source, article numbers, PDF page references), plus Credential: none and Cost: Free, which directly answer auth and billing questions. It omits pagination/size expectations for fetching a 'whole' 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?

Three short sentences with no waste; the read modes lead and the return/credential/cost facts follow. The first-person 'I want to read' framing is slightly unusual for a tool description but functions as a clear intent statement.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers returns, credential, and cost reasonably well, but leaves gaps on identifier format, text size/pagination, and how errors surface — enough to call the tool, not enough to call it confidently with an unknown id.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps the two described modes onto the two parameters (whole text = id, single article = article), but never explains what an id actually is (slug, title, or opaque ID) or how the article number should be formatted.

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 — reading an international legal text in full or a single article — and the return payload (original text, edition, source). It does not name or distinguish itself from the close sibling research_international_law, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 two usage modes (whole text vs. one article) are implied, which is useful. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as research_international_law, international_law, or law_index, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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