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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a return-shape statement ('Content full text list with document_id, full_text') and jurisdiction scope, but does not discuss pagination defaults, auth, or other operational behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and uses clear sections ('Use this tool when', 'Parameters', 'Returns'). However, the Parameters section is a partial duplicate of the schema and is inconsistent with the use-case bullets, which mention filters like status, repealed, and publication_date that are absent from the Parameters list.

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 retrieval tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description is largely sufficient: it provides the required parameter, return shape, and common use cases. It does not route to siblings like get_document_with_version or get_markdown, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining calling details.

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%, so the schema already explains all 26 parameters. The description repeats a small subset of parameters without adding meaningful detail such as default limit/offset behavior or date formats, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('full text') and scopes it to a jurisdiction with optional filters. This is enough to set it apart from list/get siblings, though it never names a contrasting tool.

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 'Use this tool when' bullets state concrete query intents such as available full text for portal, title, URL, status, or filtering by authority/source/tag. This gives clear context but no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, so it stops short of full routing.

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