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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by stating no URL fabrication, data source (AI Law Tracker, CC BY 4.0), and informational-only disclaimers, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 description is moderately concise, with each sentence adding useful information (tiers, data provenance, no fabrication, upgrade hint). It could be slightly shortened but remains efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned: tiered sources with an upgrade hint. It covers the key behavioral aspects sufficiently.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (schema coverage 100%). The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves primary/secondary source URLs for a single law record. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ai_law and get_law_citations by specifying 'source links' and 'curated jurisdiction sources'.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to get source URLs) and includes tier-based access details (basic vs Developer+), plus an upgrade hint when sources are withheld. It could mention specific sibling alternatives like search_ai_laws but is sufficient for guidance.

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