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 genuine non-annotation context: the return shape (article text plus dadrasai.com link) and ranking behavior ('an article named by number and law comes first'). No pagination or result-count behavior is described, but that is a minor gap given the small limit cap.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and what it returns, then the usage rule, then query-format advice with examples. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding 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 usefully describes the return content and ranking. With no annotation contradictions and a simple two-parameter surface, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only missing piece is routing guidance versus the find_law/get_law_article siblings.

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 only 50% (limit is undocumented), so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the query must be Persian, in statute vocabulary, with three concrete example phrasings. It adds real semantics beyond the schema's short query description, though it says nothing about the undocumented limit parameter.

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 — searching Iranian statutes/regulations published by Dadras — and adds what comes back (matching articles plus a link). However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings find_law and get_law_article, so an agent cannot be sure which of the three to pick without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use instruction ('any question about what Iranian law says') plus a behavioral rule to quote results rather than memory, and detailed query-writing guidance with Persian examples. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or why find_law/get_law_article would be preferred, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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