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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: large acts return a table of contents rather than full text, package listings are paginated, and truncation is surfaced in both text ('showing a–b of N; k more') and structuredContent with a ready-made continuation call. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false or any auth constraints, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loads the core purpose and the law_ask ordering before pagination mechanics, and every sentence carries information. The pagination/truncation behavior is stated twice (narrative and structuredContent), which is slightly redundant but defensible.

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 lookup tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the main retrieval paths, ordering guidance, and truncation recovery. The lang, contract, inputLimit, and inputOffset modes exist only in the schema, so the description is not exhaustive for all 8 parameters.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining what package (table of contents for large acts) and predicate (full text) actually return, and by restating the working pagination defaults (20, 500 max) that govern limit/offset.

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: it returns inference rules showing how exactly a predicate is derived (premises, source articles). It also distinguishes its scope from the sibling law_ask by framing itself as the rule source that precedes fact supply.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Appelez ceci AVANT de fournir des faits à law_ask') along with the reason (rules say which facts are needed instead of leaving them to invention). It also routes between the two main modes: package= for a table of contents of large acts, predicate= for full text.

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