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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it guarantees pagination by structural block with no silent truncation, reveals the version refusal behavior with a published URL, and mentions provenance and text-state disclosure. This gives the agent accurate expectations for response quality and edge cases.

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?

Three sentences carry all the essential information: purpose, output format, pagination guarantee, and version behavior. The most useful scoping question is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with readOnly/idempotent annotations and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors an agent must know: pagination, refusal of pinned versions, and text-state disclosure. No critical selection or invocation behavior is 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 80%, and the schema already documents locator.kind, cursor, on_date, and version_id. The description adds a concise restatement of the version_id policy ('the service serves one text per instrument') and implicitly explains cursor via pagination, but it does not materially expand meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('operative text of an article, annex or recital'), and the output form ('as markdown, with its cite anchor, provenance and text-state disclosure'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_instrument or list_provisions by focusing on a single provision's content.

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 opening question 'What does this provision say?' clearly signals the intended use, and the pagination and version_id guidance tells the agent how to handle large provisions and pinned versions. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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