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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds that the law is null when absent. However, it does not explain behavior for as_of or snapshot_id, or any potential error conditions.

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 a single concise sentence, though the phrasing is slightly grammatically awkward. It is appropriately short and does not waste words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return shape more thoroughly. It mentions null when absent but omits details about the law object's fields, as_of/snapshot semantics, and possible errors, leaving some gaps for a complete context.

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?

Only law_id is referenced in the description ('by the id'), leaving as_of and snapshot_id unexplained. Since the schema provides no descriptions, these parameters remain ambiguous beyond their names.

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 clearly indicates the tool returns a single law by its ID and mentions null when absent, which distinguishes it from search_laws. However, the phrase 'search_laws returned' is awkward and could confuse the tool's exact role.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like laws_search_laws or laws_list_law_types. The distinction is only implicit in the 'by id' wording.

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