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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that resolution yields both an id and a source URL, and that European article references route to get_law_article, but says nothing about behavior on unresolvable or ambiguous references, which is the main risk for a resolver.

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 mapping is front-loaded and each bullet of accepted formats adds routing value; the two inline examples demonstrate the call shape. It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place, with only mild redundancy between the format bullets and the Args section.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needed to clarify inputs and the sibling handoff — which it does. The only gap is failure/ambiguity behavior for references that match nothing or match several texts.

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 a 3 baseline applies, but the description goes beyond the schema by illustrating format families for 'reference' ("loi n° 91-647", "Cass. 2e civ., 14 oct. 1999, n° 96-21.701", "art. 8 CEDH") and by explaining legitext's purpose (a LEGIARTI belonging to a text outside the codes) and date's role (article version). This meaningfully disambiguates the optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Turns a reference into an identifier and an official link') and then enumerates the exact input families it accepts (statute/decree numbers, LEGIARTI/LEGITEXT/ECLI/CELEX identifiers, decision citations, European article references). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_legislation, which locate documents rather than resolve an already-known reference.

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?

It states the precise input shapes that trigger this tool and even names the downstream handoff ('→ official link and the get_law_article call'), which tells the agent how to continue after resolving an article. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., versus search_legislation when no reference is known), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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