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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added nuance is the word "internal," hinting at restricted visibility, but it says nothing about pagination, default page size, or what happens for a non-existent lawEventId.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing guidance rather than a deliberate trade-off.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a paginated, permission-scoped listing tool the description leaves pagination behavior and access restrictions unaddressed. Too thin for the complexity of the call surface.

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 0% across three parameters. The description implies the required lawEventId ("for a law event") but never mentions limit/offset, their defaults, or the maximum page size of 100, leaving the pagination contract entirely undocumented outside bare schema constraints.

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?

"Read internal notes for a law event" states a specific verb (read) and resource (internal notes) scoped to a parent resource, which separates it from siblings like get_law_event and list_law_events. It stops short of explicitly naming the distinction, but an agent can infer it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_law_events, list_law_decisions, or get_law_event, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer that this is the child-listing endpoint from the name alone.

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