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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the publisher assertions are returned verbatim, alongside an applicable state, under one fixed reading of the dates. It does not address authorization, idempotency, or error behavior, but it adds meaningful domain-specific context.

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 definition is compact, essentially one sentence with no obvious padding. However, it is syntactically dense and front-loads a noun phrase rather than a clear action, making it harder to parse than necessary.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain both inputs and return shape more fully. It lists the returned fact fields, which helps, but leaves the language parameter unexplained and does not give a complete picture of how the response is structured.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning for the work identifier and the date through phrases like 'about a Luxembourg work' and 'state applicable on a date,' but it never explains the language parameter or clearly maps behavior to the named inputs.

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 names a specific resource, a Luxembourg work, and the exact returned facts (inForceStatus, dateEntryInForce, dateNoLongerInForce), plus the applicable state on a date. That is more than a tautology and gives an agent a concrete sense of what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as in_force_on or as_of.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve force status on a given date, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. In a sibling set containing in_force_on, as_of, and as_observed, that omission leaves the agent to infer routing.

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