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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful scope fact (norm texts are excluded) but says nothing about result shape, pagination behavior, or what happens with an ambiguous or unknown law abbreviation.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, and the key qualifier (no norm texts) is front-loaded. It is telegraphic enough that the missing verb slightly reduces immediate readability, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the main modes and the scope boundary. With no output schema, it could still say more about the returned shape and how paging interacts with the views, but the essentials are present.

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 `law`, `limit`, `offset`, `rechtsraum`, `since_date` and the `ansicht` modes are all documented in structured fields. The description's parenthetical enumeration roughly restates the `ansicht` values rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource precisely (a whole law, explicitly without norm texts) and enumerates the four things it can return: info, Gliederung, Änderungen, Nummerierungslücken. The 'ohne Normtexte' clause implicitly separates it from the `normen` sibling, though that sibling is never named and no verb is stated outright.

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: the reader must infer 'use this for law-level metadata/structure, use normen for the actual text'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of `gesetze_finden` for locating a law or `stand` for version dates.

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