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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety burden is covered. The description then adds useful context about what each returned entry contains: the plain-words requirement, the article, the date checked, and a link to the official text — this is genuine added value beyond the structured fields.

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, well front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates the returned fields. No filler, though the trailing list of returned attributes makes it slightly long for one sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the returned fields (plain-words requirement, article, date checked, official link), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations, so little is missing beyond selective-use guidance.

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 all three parameters are enums with documented meanings, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description maps country and the optional pattern link to their roles but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource: returns EU and national provisions from the regulation register, scoped to a chosen country and optionally to one pattern. The resource is distinct from siblings like adoption_find_patterns or adoption_get_pattern, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: it makes clear that pattern_id narrows results to provisions linked to that pattern, which tells the agent the optional filter's role. There is no explicit when-to-use vs siblings guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so it stops short of 4-5.

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