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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description goes further by spelling out the return payload (standard name, edition year, clause/table, plain-English summary) and warning not to assume a default jurisdiction. That is value the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and the routing exclusion are front-loaded, and examples are compact and illustrative. The sentence about pre-populating compliance documents, RAMS, or certificates is mildly redundant with the earlier use-case framing but still earns its place by signalling downstream workflow.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly. Combined with the region/jurisdiction caveat and worked examples, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, including enum values for trade and explicit guidance on region and the free-tier api_key, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces region's role in edition selection but adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema already documents.

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 concrete verb ("Retrieves") and concrete resources (code sections, standards, regulatory references) scoped to a construction trade topic. It also distinguishes itself from the compliance-checking sibling by framing itself as a citation lookup rather than a yes/no verdict.

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 an explicit when-to-use ("when you need to cite the exact standard document, clause number, table reference") and an explicit exclusion ("without asking a yes/no compliance question"), which implicitly routes compliance verdicts to check_compliance. It adds downstream use cases (RAMS, certificates, compliance documents) and three concrete example queries.

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