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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior by clarifying that acts resolve to a folder rather than a file and that decisions are addressed by docket/citation, but it says nothing about match strategy (exact vs. fuzzy), multi-match behavior, or limits beyond the schema's max_results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary provision-number case before extending to acts and decisions. The parenthetical examples are dense but each illustrates a distinct accepted query form, so little is wasted.

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 detail is not required, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a resolver with four parameters and a broad input space, the description omits how ambiguous or multiple matches are handled and gives no routing guidance relative to the many sibling search/resolve tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by supplying concrete query strings ("1182", "Art. 16a", "reg 13", "debtor", "1 BvR 1547/19", "410 U.S. 113") that show accepted input syntax beyond the schema's prose categories. It does not address offset, max_results, or jurisdiction, but the schema already documents those fully.

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 states a specific verb and outcome ("Find the file path of a provision") and enumerates the three entity types it resolves: provisions, acts (returning the folder), and court decisions. An agent can tell this is a locator/resolver rather than a content reader, though it never names a sibling such as search_law or read_law to sharpen the boundary.

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 through the input examples ("by its number", "words from its heading", "by its docket number"). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_law or resolve_citations, and no note about what to do when the query is ambiguous or matches multiple items.

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