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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered and chunked at 50 per page, and each item carries a slug, which tells the agent how to page and what identifiers come back.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the two operational facts an agent needs (ordering and page size). Zero filler.

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 carries the return shape and it does so adequately: ordered articles, paginated at 50, each with a slug. What is missing is any sense of volume, termination, or what a law with zero articles yields, which keeps it from a 5.

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 50%: law_slug has a description ('From find_law'), while page is undocumented. The description compensates by clarifying the page size (50 per page), which is the one semantic the schema omits, but it adds nothing about page numbering or bounds beyond the schema's minimum/default.

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 the resource (articles of one law), ordering, and pagination rate, which clearly separates it from get_law_article (single article) and find_law (law lookup). The verb is only implied, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer get_law_article over this, and no prerequisites. The only routing hint ('From find_law') lives in the schema, not the description.

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