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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that status/tense is computed live at call time and that results may reflect recent amendments — a meaningful freshness warning that explains the tool's core value. It omits auth requirements, pagination, and result-set size limits, so it is not complete.

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?

Three sentences, purpose and freshness caveat front-loaded, no filler. The closing anecdote ("five days before it would have applied") is evocative and motivates the currency claim, though it is slightly long for the information it adds.

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 and no annotations, so the description must sketch the return shape — and it does (instrument, article setting the date, primary-law link, amending act). Combined with the live-computation note, that is enough for a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter list tool, though pagination and total-count behavior are unstated.

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 the schema already documents id, status, and jurisdiction (including the default). The description adds no parameter-level guidance such as how jurisdiction substrings interact with status, so the 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 resource (regulatory obligations tracked by Lunara Society) and a distinctive behavioral trait (tense computed at call time). An agent can tell it is a listing/retrieval tool, but the description never contrasts it against the siblings lunara_verify, lunara_cite, lunara_applicability, or lunara_integrity, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 concrete trigger questions ("what is in force", "what is coming", "what does instrument X require") and an explicit alternative to avoid (recalling dates from training data). It stops short of 5 because it names no sibling tool as the alternative for adjacent questions, so routing between Lunara tools remains unaddressed.

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