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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the important trait that results reflect the version in force at a given date (defaulting to today). However, it says nothing about behavior when an article or date is invalid, nor about any permissions or rate limits.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter formats, with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 no explanation, and all three undocumented schema parameters are covered by the description. What remains missing is sibling routing and error behavior, which is a modest gap for a simple read tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives concrete formats and examples for all three parameters (code names like « Code civil », numbers like « 1240 » or « L1221-1 », dates as AAAA-MM-JJ). Minor mismatch: the schema default is an empty string while the description says the default is today.

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 resource (the text of an article of a code or law) and the key scoping concept (as in force at a given date), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like lire_texte or lire_decision, which leaves some disambiguation to name inference.

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 description says nothing about when to use this tool versus lire_texte, rechercher_loi, or lire_decision, and gives no preconditions or exclusions. Only the parameter examples hint at the intended usage pattern, which the agent must infer.

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