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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the max_chars default of 30000, the 100000 hard cap, and cursor-based pagination for truncated responses. That is real operational detail beyond the annotations.

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 that front-load the usage condition, then the selector grammar and budget rules. Slight redundancy with the schema's selector and max_chars descriptions, but no filler or wasted sentences.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it already covers the trigger condition, selector syntax, and pagination/budget limits. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the selector and budget rules. The description largely restates those same selector examples and caps, adding little semantic meaning beyond what the structured fields provide. 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 (read) and resource (law) and defines the selector grammar with concrete examples like 'pasal 27-30' and 'bab III'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_law_context or resolve_law, so it falls short of a 5, but the action is unambiguous.

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 'WHEN a law is known and text is needed' clause gives a clear triggering condition, and the emphasis on 'forgiving selector strings' tells the agent what input style is expected. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g., when the law must first be resolved).

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