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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the weight of the Begründung as evidence ('strong evidence of legislative intent but not binding'), the coverage scope ('Covers amendments since 1949... only'), and the source preparation ('Excerpts are prepared from the Bundestag-extracted text, not the original PDF'). No contradictions with 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?

The description is longer than minimal but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then usage, then output and scope. Each sentence contributes substantive legal context, so it earns its place, though it could be tightened without losing critical information.

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?

For a legal research tool with output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It explains purpose, usage triggers, legal weight, output characteristics ('Returns the linked Begründungs-Abschnitte newest first'), scope limits, and relationship to sibling tools—everything an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example for the 'norm' parameter ('Pass a provision like '§ 823 BGB' or 'Art. 87a GG'') and by clarifying that an unknown or non-German provision returns no materials. This goes slightly beyond the schema's generic 'e.g.' text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the official legislative reasoning (Gesetzesbegründung / explanatory memorandum from a Bundestags-Drucksache) for a specific German federal provision'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling legal_find_citing_decisions by stating it provides the drafting intent while the sibling covers how courts apply a norm.

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?

Explicit guidance is given for when to use: 'Reach for it when the question turns on a norm's purpose... or what a specific amendment was meant to achieve'. It also names the complementary alternative, legal_find_citing_decisions, and notes coverage limitations ('Covers amendments since 1949 to German federal law only').

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