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 adds real behavioral context by saying each jurisdiction reports the last change in force plus the next. It does not mention pagination, empty results, or tree traversal 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing clause 'the last change in force in each, and the next' is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly, but nothing 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?

The tool has an output schema and full annotation coverage, so return shape needs no explanation. What remains thin is the conceptual framing: 'the tree' and 'the next' are undefined, and the relationship to sibling range/compare tools is left for the agent to infer.

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 date format, the 'today' default, the kind enum, and jurisdiction prefixes are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 states a specific resource and scope: a snapshot of every jurisdiction in the tree on one date, showing the last change in force and the next. That distinguishes it from interval tools like changes_between or laws_between. The verb is only implicit ('looked like'), which keeps it from a 5.

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 implied by 'on one date' — use it to get a point-in-time snapshot rather than a range. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings such as changes_between or compare_dates, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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