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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world, but the description adds the return shape, status semantics ('in_force only when the official source says so'), consolidated_url null meaning, checked_at/status_source provenance, and the link_only behavior for unindexed Member States. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs beyond the annotations.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and return contract, then drills into country-specific behavior. The single dense paragraph is information-rich but would scan better with light structural separation of search coverage versus return semantics.

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, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: ids, links, status fields, provenance, and null semantics. Coverage of the supported jurisdictions and the French special cases completes what an agent needs to call it correctly; limit bounds are already in the schema.

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, but the description adds real query semantics not in the schema: '78-17', '<code> article <n>' article text, and the 'juri:' case-law prefix. Country coverage and the in_force_only caveats are reinforced rather than newly explained, keeping it below a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Find EU or national legislation') plus the query modes (title words, abbreviation, number) and the 'in one call' scope. An agent can distinguish this search tool from the link-retrieval sibling get_law_link without opening either 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?

It gives clear context on when this applies: EU-wide and specific national searches, French code/article/case-law syntax, and 'link_only' fallback for other Member States. It does not explicitly name when to use get_law_link or list_sources instead, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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