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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results carry dates and that jur is CSV — it says nothing about ordering, default or maximum limit, or whether the feed is truncated, which matters for a 'since' query.

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, front-loaded sentences that lead with what the tool returns before giving invocation guidance and parameter syntax. There is minor redundancy between 'with dates' and 'since a date', and the telegraphic phrasing ('jur (csv)') trades clarity for brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape; 'new and amended acts ... with dates' sketches it but omits result ordering, pagination/truncation behavior, and the meaning of limit. For a read-only feed with three parameters, that leaves real gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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 67%, so the schema already documents 'since' as YYYY-MM-DD and 'jur' as comma-separated codes; the description largely restates both. The one undocumented parameter, limit, is only named ('optional ... limit') with no indication of what it limits or its default, so the description fails to compensate where the schema is silent.

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 resource and scope: 'new and amended acts since a date, with dates' — a legislative changes feed, which an agent can distinguish from get/history/search siblings by its delta-oriented framing. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Call it to answer "what changed in this jurisdiction since a date"' gives a concrete triggering question, which is stronger than implied usage. No exclusions or alternatives are offered (e.g., versus lexatlas_history or lexatlas_calendar), leaving the agent to guess at overlap cases.

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