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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to carry the full safety profile. It adds useful behavioral context: results are paginated by paragraph index, default limit is 50, maximum is 50, and it returns individual paragraph chunks rather than the full document.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage before the Args section, and every sentence contributes concrete information. The parameter list is compact and directly useful for invocation.

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 read-only paginated paragraph-reading tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key call semantics: pagination via offset/limit, defaults, max, and paragraph-chunk return behavior. It could optionally clarify the exact chunk shape or whether total counts are returned, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents every parameter. It explains authority_id with a canonical ID example, offset as a 0-based paragraph index defaulting to 0, and limit as the number of paragraphs defaulting to 50 with a maximum of 50.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading paragraphs from a judgment in pages, returning individual paragraph chunks from the authority's full text. It explicitly differentiates this from get_authority_detail by noting that it accesses sections beyond the truncated text there, so an agent can understand its role without opening schemas.

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 gives clear usage contexts: reading through long judgments page by page or accessing specific sections beyond the truncated text in get_authority_detail. The named alternative helps routing, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or distinguish it from sibling read_judgment_text.

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