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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's value is in explaining that results are limited to the 'community version' corpus and that each document carries an in-force version — genuine behavioral context an agent would otherwise not know. It doesn't discuss pagination behavior, but the schema already documents limit/offset.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scope caveat and version detail packed into a subordinate clause. Nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and the tool has no required parameters. The description adequately frames a simple listing tool, with only a minor gap around how it relates to the sibling retrieval tools and when to move on to them.

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% and each parameter is documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'in force' loosely gestures at the as_of parameter but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema's own 'List the documents in force on this date'.

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 ('List the laws ... can cite') plus a scope qualifier ('this community version') and adds that each entry reports which version is in force. This clearly separates it from get_document/get_clause (retrieval of one item) and search_policies (query-based lookup), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'what can be cited' suggests this is the discovery step before fetching a specific document. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no statement about when to prefer search_policies instead, and no note on what to do with the results.

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