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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses data-coverage limits (post-2012 AN files, key dates only before), the full response structure (parcours steps, documents with number/date/authors/URL, votes, minutes, Constitutional Council decision, Official Journal), the meaning of `issue` as adopted/rejected, and the max-20 files ceiling.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and what the response contains, followed by a compact example and the parameter list — the reader can stop after the first sentence if they only need the gist. The Args block duplicates the schema word-for-word, which is mild waste for docstring-style convention but not harmful.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup with four simple scalar params and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: domain meaning, coverage limits, input modes, return shape, and citation guidance. Return-format detail is technically redundant given the output schema, but it adds useful context rather than creating a gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The 'Args' block largely restates the schema fields verbatim (query operators, loi example, limit max, steps meaning) rather than adding syntax, format, or interaction rules beyond it; the only marginal addition is the example call and the note that `issue` distinguishes adopted from rejected outcomes.

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+resource — retrieving the legislative history (travaux préparatoires) of a French statute or bill — and pins down scope ('Assemblée nationale files since 2012; key dates only before'). This is clearly separable from sibling tools like search_legislation, get_law_article, and get_decision, which retrieve current text or case law rather than the drafting trail.

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?

Gives a concrete call example and implies the two entry paths: keyword `query` for browsing file titles versus exact `loi` number, plus the downstream instruction to 'cite documents by number and URL.' It never states when not to use it or points to search_legislation as the alternative for full-text lookup, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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