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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the reports section includes failed measurements, entries are paged by JSON Pointer, and a next value continues the answer. It still leaves the exact pagination contract and response shape somewhat cryptic, but it provides meaningful operational context.

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 short and front-loads the passport contents before adding the reports and pagination notes. Every sentence is relevant, though terms like 'JSON Pointer' and 'next continues the answer' are compressed enough to be ambiguous.

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?

With seven parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should do more to explain required release identity, section selection, index behavior, and return structure. It mentions paging and some sections but leaves the agent without enough detail to confidently construct calls or interpret results.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain name, version, contentHash, limit, offset, or the full sections enum; it only alludes generally to an exact release, a reports section, and JSON Pointer paging. That is insufficient for a seven-parameter tool with low 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?

The description identifies a specific resource: the passport for an exact release, with sections for purpose, interface, boundaries, checks, performance, and reports. It is clear what kind of artifact is being fetched, but it never states an explicit verb such as retrieve or return and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like law_inspect or law_report.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use law_passport versus alternatives such as law_inspect, law_sources, law_report, or law_query. It implies that the tool is used to inspect an exact release passport, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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