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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the response contains fact ids and verification states, which is real behavioral information about output content. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering, pagination, or the size/scope of the result set for a legaluk corpus.

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 front-loaded fragment with zero filler; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but it does not waste words or bury the point.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back but leaves the meaning of "verification states" and any result-size or ordering behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by calling it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. No schema-level parameter documentation is needed or missing.

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?

"List fact ids + verification states (legaluk)" names a specific verb (List) and the concrete resource and fields returned (fact ids, verification states), scoped to the legaluk domain. It is clearly distinct from legaluk_get_fact and legaluk_changes by name, though the description never states that distinction 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus legaluk_get_fact or legaluk_changes; the agent must infer that listing ids is a discovery step preceding fact retrieval. No prerequisites, no mention of when-not to use it.

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