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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations cannot: per-mode size budgets (3KB/15KB/20 groups) and the instruction to flag quoted text as unverified when source.verified is 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, with zero filler. Every clause (modes, budgets, verification caveat) carries information an agent acts on.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the important caveat about unverified source text plus size expectations. Minor gap: it never says what happens when the law identifier is unresolvable.

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 100% and the schema already documents both params, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying each detail mode to a concrete budget and describing the source/verification fields returned, giving the agent meaning beyond the bare enum list.

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 and names the three payload modes (status, outline, relationships), which distinguishes it from read_law (full text) and search_legal. It does not however name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"WHEN a law is known ... before reading text" gives a clear triggering condition and sequencing guidance. It does not mention the alternative for an unknown law (resolve_law) or when to skip context and go straight to read_law, so exclusions are absent.

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