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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It does add real behavioral context beyond them: results are derived from the formalization rather than narrated, the defect classes checked are enumerated, and it explicitly warns that a terminal step without outgoing transitions is named but must NOT be reported as a defect — a non-obvious semantic the agent would otherwise get wrong. Missing are error behavior for an unknown package and whether output is a fixed graph dump.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds one distinct piece: reconstruction semantics, the defect checklist, the no-argument mode, and the terminal-step caveat. It is dense and clause-heavy with em-dash fragments, but no sentence is pure padding.

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, single-optional-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what it computes, what counts as a defect, and the behavior when the parameter is omitted. Only the shape of the returned result and treatment of an unknown or unformed package are left implicit, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the single 'package' parameter is already documented there as 'l'acte ; sans lui — la liste des actes qui portent des procédures'. The description restates the same fact ('Sans package — la liste des actes...') without adding matching rules, expected identifier format, or failure behavior, so it does not exceed the schema. 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 and resource: it reconstructs the steps and transitions of the procedure established by a legal act and checks the graph for structural defects (unreachable steps, dead transitions, orphan transitions). That is precise enough for an agent to know what it produces, but the description never distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling law_process_run, leaving an obvious ambiguity unaddressed.

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 only usage guidance is embedded in the parameter note: 'Sans package — la liste des actes dont la procédure est formalisée', which tells the agent to omit the argument to enumerate acts. There is no statement of when to prefer this over law_process_run, law_rules, or law_inspect, and no prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer the routing.

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