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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns a manifest rather than full text, surfaces currency warnings, and explains how dual-version sections are represented. This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 dense but well-organized: the core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the key distinction from siblings, the intended use, and a special-case explanation. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned, what is not returned, how to interpret currency and dual-version sections, and how to follow up for actual text. An agent has what it needs to call and use the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'a register' as the object being listed, which gives some context for register_id, but it does not explicitly explain what register_id values look like or where they come from. The single parameter is fairly self-evident, so this is adequate but not richly documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the obligations in a register' and enumerates the returned fields (sections, sizes, provenance, currency). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns a manifest, NOT the regulator text, and directs quoting to get_obligation or find_in_section.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to decide which sections are worth reading.' It also names the alternatives for quoting regulator text, making the boundary between this tool and its siblings explicit.

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