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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is about added context. The description adds return ordering ('newest first'), output fields ('BT-Drs.', reasoning text, 'target_norm_keys'), the no-materials behavior for unknown/non-German provisions, the non-binding weight of the Begründung, and the fact that excerpts come from Bundestag-extracted text rather than the original PDFs.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds decision-relevant information: purpose, interpretive weight, usage scenarios, input format, output shape, sibling distinction, coverage limits, and source caveat. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is structured logically.

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 legal research tool with this complexity, the description covers what it returns, how it orders results, what input to pass, what scope limitations apply, how to interpret the evidence weight, and how it differs from the closest sibling. Nothing essential for an agent to select and call it correctly is missing.

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%: both 'norm' and 'limit' are already fully described in the input schema. The description repeats the provision format ('§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 87a GG') and adds contextual guidance about scope, but it does not add meaningfully new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Return the official legislative reasoning (Gesetzesbegründung ...) for a specific German federal provision.' It also explicitly separates this tool from legal_find_citing_decisions by contrasting legislative intent with court application, so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings without inspecting 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 explains clearly when to use the tool: for questions about ratio legis, undefined terms, planwidrig gaps, deliberate silences, and amendment intent. It also names the alternative sibling legal_find_citing_decisions and states the boundary: this covers drafting intent, the other covers how courts apply a norm. It additionally notes the 1949-present and German-federal-law-only scope.

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