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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it never reads law text, an empty list is a meaningful negative, lists are complete only for the covered watch window, and the meaning of `disputed`, `dispute_reason`, `applies_from: unknown`, and `metadata_only_units`/`instruction_only_units` are all explained. This is exactly the value-add beyond structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the remaining text is a dense run-on of clauses and a legal disclaimer that could be tightened; several semantic points are valuable but are packed without structural separation, making it harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to document return shape, yet it still explains the key non-obvious return semantics (dispute signals, unknown application dates, single-signal units, window completeness). For a tool of this complexity it is nearly complete, with the main gap being the absence of sibling-routing guidance.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's framing ('whose canonical location string or stored heading contains `query`') largely restates the schema's own wording for `query` and adds no new format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Find touched provisions of one act whose canonical location string or stored heading contains `query`, each with its newest row.' It scopes to one act and a match rule, which is clear. However it does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings such as provision_history or find_substance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 implied through output semantics (empty list meaning, watch-window completeness) rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. It never names an alternative tool or a condition that selects a sibling over this one, so the agent must infer routing from context.

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