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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description goes further: it returns only the current consolidated version with no historical versions, may include an abolition note, and exposes law_url for amendment history. It also explains the two failure modes (article-not-found implies wrong/renumbered number; law-name miss returns law_candidates and does not prove nonexistence due to corpus gaps). Lacks only detail on response shape beyond the key fields.

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?

Dense but well-structured: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the verification rationale, the scope limitation, and the failure-mode guidance. Nearly every sentence carries operational value, though it runs long enough that the historical-version caveat could be tightened.

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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (verbatim article_content, abolition note, law_url), the corpus's scope limits (no municipal ordinances, incomplete administrative rules), and both error paths — nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret 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 still adds value by clarifying that article_no accepts the '47-1' form meaning 第47條之1 and that law_name accepts common abbreviations. It also introduces the meaning of law_candidates returned on a name miss, tying parameters to failure behavior.

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 ('EXACT lookup of a CURRENT Taiwan statute article') plus the identifiers used, with a worked example (民法, 184 / 47-1). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_legal_reference and search_judgments, which it names.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (verify every statute citation before legal writing) and when not to (never for pre-amendment 行為時法 text — check law_url amendment history; not for 函釋 or judgments, with the correct sibling named for each). Alternatives and exclusions are both spelled out.

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