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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return scope (target article only, plus one-sentence neighbor hints), and imposes a citation-integrity rule ('引用法条必须以本工具返回的原文为准，不得凭记忆编造条号或条文'). It still omits the response shape/pagination, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences plus ★-marked rules; each clause earns its place (trigger, scope limit, anti-hallucination, slug sourcing). Slightly dense but no 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 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, it covers the essentials: what is returned (article text + neighbor hints), when to call it, how to source the identifier, and the citation rule. Only the exact output formatting is left unspecified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-field meaning: slug must be the verbatim value from search_law's items[].slug, and slug takes precedence over law. This is dependency information the schema alone does not convey.

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+resource: read the original text of a named law's specific article, plus a preceding/following article hint. It also declares the aggregating scope explicitly ('只回目标条，不整部下发'), which separates it from search_law/search_articles without needing the 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 a concrete trigger with examples ('用户给了条号时用，例如「民法典第 584 条」') and names search_law as the source of slug, implying the upstream step. It stops short of an explicit 'if the user gave no article number, use search_law instead' exclusion in the description (that lives only in the schema).

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