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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it confirms the citation resolves in the served corpus rather than asserting real-world legal status, explains the response returns current served text, and describes the output structure including the 'Sources used' section and meta.render_contract. This goes far beyond the annotations and sets accurate expectations.

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 primary purpose and is information-dense. However, the final sentence is a long, run-on construction that combines the 'Sources used' section, the zero-result note, and meta.render_contract into a single sentence. It is still efficient, but slightly less crisp than a fully bulleted or shorter structure would be.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does a thorough job of explaining what the response will contain: current served text, a 'Sources used' table, a zero-result note, and meta.render_contract. It also covers limitations and alternatives, making it complete for an agent to know when to use the tool and what to expect.

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 the parameters law, article, and jurisdiction are already fully described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it discusses the overall behavior but not the semantics of individual arguments. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with 'Verify a legal citation against the served corpus', which is a specific verb+resource+method. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating what it does NOT do (assert legal in-force status, consult amendment feeds) and explicitly names 'diff' as the alternative for provision-level change comparison. This fully differentiates it from tools like get_provision or search.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: "Use this when someone asks 'is this citation correct' or 'check whether Article 28 GDPR still says this'". It also provides an exclusion by noting it does not assert legal in-force status and does not consult amendment feeds, and it names 'diff' as the alternative for provision-level changes. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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