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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing that output includes the text plus an EUR-Lex link, and that only ESRS is multilingual while VSME is implicitly English/default. It stops short of stating behavior for invalid codes or unknown disclosures.

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 tight sentences with the return content front-loaded, followed by the language caveat. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back (official text, EUR-Lex link) and the language dimension. It leaves a small gap on error/not-found behavior and on whether VSME text is available in non-English languages.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the schema documents code format and language defaulting logic, but the description adds the valid code namespaces for each standard and ties language availability to ESRS specifically, which the enum alone does not convey. This meaningfully extends the schema rather than repeating it.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the official text of a disclosure') and scopes it precisely to two named frameworks with their code ranges (VSME B1-B11/C1-C9, ESRS E1-8, S1-5). Sibling check_reporting_obligation is about determining obligations, so the retrieval-vs-assessment distinction is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for looking up a disclosure's official wording, and the code-range examples help the agent know which arguments are valid. However, it never states when to choose this versus check_reporting_obligation, nor any prerequisite such as needing a code from the obligation check first.

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