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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false. The description goes well beyond that by explaining the meaning of each field (first_observed, valid_to, date_precision, amendment_note), the at_archive_floor flag, and the caveat that earlier amendments exist but are not held. It also discloses the lack of a diff tool, which is a behavioral limitation an agent must know.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, ordering, field explanations, floor caveat, and the no-diff guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and stays focused without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, how to interpret ambiguous dates, the floor concept, and how to perform diffs. No critical behavioral or usage details are 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 0%, so the description must explain what 'law' and 'ref' mean. It only implies that they identify a provision ('Every stored version of one provision') without explicit details. The schema examples (BGB, 288) help, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond that. Given the zero coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 clearly states the verb (list) and resource (stored versions of one provision), and immediately ties it to a specific purpose: discovering which dates getNorm(as_of=…) can answer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getNorm and getChanges without needing to inspect schemas.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (before calling getNorm with an as_of date) and provides a concrete workflow: fetch two versions with getNorm and diff them because no diff tool exists. It also explains the floor-date concept, which is essential for interpreting results correctly.

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