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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: articles return aggregated paragraph text, and paragraphs repeat across articles. This clarifies return shape and a real pitfall without contradicting 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds disambiguation and alternative routing. Slightly dense with several clauses, but each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant filler.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key calling mechanics (kind/number/label, article disambiguation, pinpoint shortcut) and the verification alternative. Missing only minor items like which parameters are required, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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%, making 3 the baseline, but the description adds real meaning: number/label/article accept JSON numbers or strings, and pinpoint='Article 6(1)' resolves kind and number automatically. The article-required-for-paragraphs rule is also reinforced, which helps an agent avoid a common failure.

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 ('Read one citable unit by kind and number or label') and immediately distinguishes its scope from siblings by naming verify_citation as the alternative for checking someone else's pinpoint. An agent can separate read_unit from search_regulation and verify_citation without opening any 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?

Gives clear context on disambiguation ('paragraphs repeat across articles — pass article= to disambiguate') and routes the agent to verify_citation for verification tasks. It stops short of exhaustively saying when not to use it (e.g. vs. search_regulation for unknown references), so it's clear but not fully exhaustive.

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