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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: operative_cite can lack an operative_locator and operative_locator_unavailable reports this; amenders outside the corpus surface under source_external with via_article; and there is deliberately no article index. These are exactly the edge cases an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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, relationship semantics, missing-locator sentinel, external amender handling, sibling routing, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 an output schema exists, return-value details are already covered. The description adds the operational edge cases, names the relevant siblings, and explains the on_date behavior. For a complex legal-instrument tool, this is a complete and actionable definition; the only minor gap is instrument_id documentation, which is inferable from the tool name.

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?

The description adds meaning to on_date by calling it the 'multi-axis appplicability record on that date,' which goes beyond the schema's 'ISO date; returns full aplpicability record.' However, the required instrument_id parameter has no description in the schema and no elaboration in the description, so parameter semantics are only partially compensated at 50% schema coverage.

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?

Starts with a concrete question and enumerates the returned facets: metadata, dates, lifecycle/application events, and curated relationships. It explicitly names sibling tools (get_provision, list_provisions) and explains the boundary, so an agent can distinguish it from close alternatives.

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?

Description gives clear context: use get_provision to open related articles, and use list_provisions when looking for an article index. It also tells the caller to pass on_date when the applicability record is needed. It does not exhaustively state when not to use get_instrument, but the routing guidance is strong.

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