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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered by structured data. The description adds only that the response includes a dadrasai.com link; it says nothing about error behavior for missing laws/articles or how the two input modes interact.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value followed by the input guidance, with no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence mixes two input modes without a structural cue for when each applies.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return payload (full article text with link). It also implicitly resolves the unusual 'no required parameters' schema by describing the law+article versus slug alternatives, though it does not say what happens if both modes are omitted.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with examples in Persian. The description merely repeats the law/article example and hints the slug may come from another tool, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: it returns the full text of exactly one Iranian law article plus its dadrasai.com link. The singular 'one article' implicitly separates it from list_law_articles and search_iranian_law, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 invocation hint ('Give the law's name and the article number ... or a slug/link from another tool's result') implies this is a follow-up call to a finder/search tool, which is useful chaining guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over find_law or search_iranian_law, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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