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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does so richly: the full response shape (title, edition, PDF link, id, heading, status, text with line-broken paragraphs, notes, prev/next ids, citation line), the fact that abrogated articles contain only the word 'Abrogé', and the not_found error that lists nearest article numbers.

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?

Purpose and name are front-loaded in the first clause, and the long return-field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists. It is a single dense run-on paragraph, however, and the field list could be tightened without losing information.

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 four parameters, no output schema and no destructive behavior, the description still covers return values, error semantics, language/country constraints, sibling routing and the authoritative-source caveat (DGI edition vs Journal officiel). Nothing an agent needs to 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the article-number syntax tolerance ('Art., accents and case are ignored') with concrete examples (150, 282 quater, 300-3, 2 bis). It slightly conflicts with the schema on country handling — the description says other countries return country_not_available while the schema says TN/MA return key_required — which costs a point but does not obscure the practical constraint.

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: 'Get one article of one of the six tax codes of Algeria in full', and enumerates the exact code set (cidta, cpf, ctca, ce, cii, ct) with a pointer to search_tax_code for their meanings. An agent can distinguish it from search_tax_code and get_jo_act without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('read an article before quoting it, and name it by code and number') plus the alternative route for finance laws ('use get_jo_act to read a finance law that a note names'). It also states the tool is Algeria-only, so the caller knows when not to call it.

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