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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds real epistemic behavior: the five temporal layers it separates, that unknown dates and concurrent versions are surfaced explicitly, and that a result does not certify global legal validity. That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about result volume or ordering.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the query axes before the interpretive caveats. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct layer of information.

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?

A five-parameter required-query tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description supplies the conceptual model (bitemporal separation, explicit unknowns, no certification of validity) that an agent needs to interpret results correctly; the only residual gap is identifier formatting.

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 0% with five required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does name all five concepts and gives the RFC3339 format for known_at while implicitly contrasting fact_date (event time) against known_at (knowledge time), but it gives no format or expected shape for act_id or provision identifiers.

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 (bitemporal query) plus the exact axes it queries over: act, provision, jurisdiction, fact date and known_at. An agent understands what it retrieves, though it never names which sibling (e.g. avaliar_vigencia_normativa or mudancas_desde) it should be preferred over.

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 description implies the use case (resolving how a provision stood at a given fact date as known at a given time) and explicitly warns that absence of a result is not proof of non-existence. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing against the many temporal and normative siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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