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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing result ordering (oldest first) and the three date categories returned, but says nothing about volume, pagination or rate limits for a potentially long history.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the most important fact (every law that changed the provision) is front-loaded ahead of the ordering and field details. The trailing field list is slightly list-like but each item is informative.

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, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a one-parameter read-only lookup the remaining gap is only the lack of routing guidance versus sibling history 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% and the single path parameter is already documented with a concrete example file and its source tool. The description adds no further meaning about the path's format or how provision paths differ from law paths, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource (a provision) and a specific operation (return every law that changed it), plus the ordering and the date fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from phrase_history or changes_between by the 'provision' scope, though those siblings are never named.

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: the schema notes the path comes from find_provision, which suggests the intended entry point, but the description itself gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions versus alternatives like changes_between or phrase_history.

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