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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the closed-world semantics (absence from the list means absence from the corpus) and describes the returned fields (identifier plus Knesset link) even though no output schema exists.

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 tight English sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the usage trigger and the exclusion rule. The trailing Hebrew sentence only restates what is already in the title, so it is redundant rather than 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-argument enumeration tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, what each item contains, how to use the identifier downstream, and how to interpret a missing entry. No gap remains that would cause a wrong 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no input surface to clarify. The description does useful cross-tool work by naming the returned value that must be passed as the `law` argument to misim_search_legislation.

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 and resource ("List the Israeli laws") plus the exact scope ("whose full section text is available through misim_search_legislation"), and explains what each entry carries: the `law` identifier and the official Knesset link. This clearly separates it from the sibling searcher misim_search_legislation without needing to open either schema.

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 an explicit trigger — "Call this when unsure whether a statute is covered" — and an explicit negative rule — "a law that is not listed is not in the corpus." The alternative (searching directly) is implied by naming misim_search_legislation as the consumer of these identifiers, so the agent knows the check-then-search sequence.

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