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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the paid per-call cost model, the valuable 'not charged when nothing matches' fallback, and precisely what is returned (bilingual full text, marginal and historical notes, Justice Laws URL, consolidation date, reproduction notice). These are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Cost ('PAID, per call') is front-loaded in the very first words, and each subsequent sentence contributes either return-content detail or a billing/exclusion caveat. No sentence is filler despite the length.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, plus it covers cost, a refund condition on no-match, and a coverage boundary (schedules). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know what it will cost.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples (short title/citation, '40(3)'). The description's 'Send the act and the section' restates rather than extends that, so the baseline of 3 is right.

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: get the text of one named section of a federal Act or regulation. Scope is tightly bounded ('one named section', 'Schedules are not included'), and no sibling tool in the list retrieves statutory text, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 tells the agent what to supply ('Send the act and the section') and notes the schedule exclusion, which implies when the tool applies, but it never names an alternative or states when not to use it (e.g. versus lookup_canadian_rights or a search tool when the section number is unknown).

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