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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's added value is the acceptance constraint ('only ids this service minted'), the edition-retention behavior visible in the schema, and the pointer to a richer sibling. It doesn't discuss failure modes like unknown ids, but the safety profile is already carried by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a dense but earned retrieval/citation/routing cluster. Every clause contributes; the parenthetical example is the only mild padding since the schema repeats it.

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 return values needn't be explained, and the description correctly spends its budget on routing and input constraints. The one gap is that it doesn't state what happens on an invalid or foreign id beyond pointing at resolve_citation, leaving error behavior implicit.

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% and the id description already documents accepted anchor formats and the version-qualifier behavior. The description only adds the free-text exclusion, which is routing rather than parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ('open and cite an EU legislative provision') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search (upstream) and get_provision (the richer alternative). An agent can route between fetch, resolve_citation, and get_provision without opening 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?

Explicitly ties use to output of 'search', excludes free-text citations by routing them to resolve_citation, and points to get_provision when paging/applicability/warnings are needed. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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