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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses exact-match-only behavior, not-found results appearing as found=false, accepted citation forms including court-decision references, and the 1-20 input bound. This gives an agent a clear behavioral model without needing to call the tool.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then cover exact-match behavior, examples, and routing advice. There is no filler or repetition of schema content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With the annotations, output schema, and this description, an agent has the purpose, accepted input forms, exact-match semantics, max batch size, and the alternative for fuzzy cases. Nothing essential for correctly selecting and invoking the tool 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 coverage is 100% and already documents the citations and language parameters. The description adds value by giving concrete accepted forms such as '§ 823 BGB', 'Art. 6 DSGVO', and 'VII ZR 184/14', and by linking citation format to legal_lookup, which goes beyond the bare schema description.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up full text of multiple legal provisions in a single call (exact match)'. It also names legal_lookup as the related tool and clarifies this is the batch exact-match variant, making it distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit routing advice: 'Returns exact matches only' and 'For fuzzy matching of hard-to-find provisions, use individual legal_lookup' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. The 'single call' phrasing plus the 1-20 citation limit makes the intended multi-citation use case clear.

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