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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: citation order flexibility, the fact that decision lookups return only the lead section, the language-corpus selection mechanics, and the separate DE/EN corpora. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but efficient. Each sentence earns its place: first sentence gives the core purpose with examples; second sentence clarifies flexibility; third sentence explains return scope and links to sibling tools. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and avoids fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not describe the return structure. It covers citation formats, flexible input, language selection, decision-lookup behavior, and follow-up tool routing. Together with the annotations and schema, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description still adds substantial semantic value: it enumerates exact citation formats, explains the flexible ordering of citation components, and clarifies language corpus behavior (default 'de' vs. smaller 'en' corpus, separate entries per language). This goes well beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 ('Get the full text') and resource ('specific legal provision by exact citation' or 'court decision by Aktenzeichen or ECLI'). It gives concrete format examples and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like legal_search and legal_get_toc by specifying that it handles exact-citation lookups only.

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 explicitly routes to alternatives: a decision lookup returns only the Leitsatz and further sections are reachable via legal_get_toc or legal_get_context on the returned norm_id. This tells the agent not only when to use the tool, but what it does not do and which sibling to use next.

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