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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral detail: the default view yields short extracts, continuations require contentHash, textOffset/textLimit are only valid with fragment, and the fingerprint covers the ENTIRE source rather than the extract. The only unmentioned trait is whether content can shift between pages (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Defaults are front-loaded, followed by the full-view mechanics, then constraints, then pagination — a logical order with almost no filler. The single dense paragraph is slightly run-on, which is the only cost.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: default behavior, page sizing, the fragments[].full and fragments[].next continuation fields, hash scope, pagination, and the oneOf-style requirement that the schema (0 required params) cannot convey. Nothing material 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 coverage is already 80%, yet the description adds cross-parameter constraints the schema cannot express: one of package or fragment is required, textOffset/textLimit require fragment, and a continuation requires contentHash. It also clarifies limit semantics per view (5 for summary, 1 for full) and notes the budget may lower it.

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 the resource (official source texts) and specifies its scope precisely: default short extracts via view=summary, 5 texts per page, full text address at fragments[].full, and view=full returning exact text parts. The retrieving verb is only implied ('Sources : par défaut...'), but the behavior is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from the ID-producing siblings law_search/law_rules.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('package ou fragment est requis') and points to law_search/law_rules as where the StableId comes from, which is useful routing. However, it never says when to choose this tool over law_packages, law_inspect, or law_query, so usage is only implied rather than delimited.

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