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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully names the three things being checked (applicability, VIGUEUR status, consolidated text), but leaves the 'at date T' mechanism unexplained and says nothing about what happens when an article is not in force.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three verification targets are enumerated efficiently. Dense legal jargon (VIGUEUR) is the only minor cost, and it is at least domain-precise.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back and how the temporal scope is determined; it only hints at consolidated text. The unresolved 'at date T' reference is the main completeness gap.

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 both 'num' and 'code' are fully documented with examples — baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning and in fact introduces a tension: it references 'date T' while the schema has no date parameter, leaving the agent unsure whether temporal lookup is controllable.

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 concrete verb ('Verifies') plus the specific resources: statutory article applicability, in-force status (VIGUEUR), and consolidated text. The legal-domain framing clearly separates it from siblings like french_b2b_clause_validator or french_statute_of_limitations, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the five sibling legal tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the lookup for article-level validity rather than clause validation or limitation periods.

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