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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context about the shape of results ('how far each record reaches', 'an example path'), which helps an agent anticipate coverage per record. It does not mention result size or pagination, but pagination is likely unnecessary for a static tree listing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, ending with a call to action. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 values need not be explained in detail, and the description still summarizes them appropriately. For a zero-required-parameter read tool, the only minor gap is the lack of guidance on how the optional jurisdiction filter interacts with the full listing.

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% and the single optional parameter already documents prefix syntax with examples like 'germany' and 'united-states/federal'. The description adds nothing about how the prefix narrows the results, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource (list jurisdictions) plus scope ('every jurisdiction and body of law in the tree') and what each record contains ('how far each record reaches and an example path'). This lets an agent distinguish it from lookup tools like find_provision or law_details without opening the schema.

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?

'Start here' establishes this as the entry point for discovery, giving clear context for when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. when a specific jurisdiction or provision is already known).

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