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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. Beyond that, the description adds useful output behavior: 'failed_optional' for non-updated sources, per-source ages, 'standvermerk', and the different shapes with and without 'law' and with 'gerichte=true'. It could still say more about what 'ok' means, but it carries substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and stays compact. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, listing fields and branches in one long block, but every part appears to communicate either purpose, parameter effects, or return structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately lists the response fields and conditional branches. For a two-parameter read-only status tool, it covers the essential call behavior and return shape. Minor gaps remain around exact staleness semantics and failure meanings, but nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description adds conditional output semantics beyond the schema: with 'law' the result covers that statute's last change, without 'law' it reports 'zuletzt_geaendert_bund', and 'gerichte=true' switches jurisprudence from group-level to court-level.

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 states a specific concern: 'Aktualität des Bestands: letzte Aktualisierung' and explains that with 'law' it reports the last change of that statute. This is clearly a freshness/status tool rather than a search or retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as gesetz or gesetze_finden.

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?

The description implies usage through parameter effects: pass 'law' to inspect a specific statute's last change, and pass 'gerichte=true' for per-court jurisprudence. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool instead of the sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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