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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description explains the substantive behavior: citation extraction, effective-date comparison, and automatic flagging of possible maintenance targets. It does not describe output format or handling of missing citations, but the core behavioral logic is disclosed.

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 front-loaded: it names the tool, states the extraction/comparison behavior, then gives the intended user and parameter rule. Some title duplication at the start is redundant, but the remaining text 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 no output schema, the description still conveys the conceptual return value — flagged ordinance provisions whose superior law was amended after the ordinance took effect. It does not specify the exact result structure or edge-case behavior, but it covers enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation.

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 a meaningful constraint beyond the schema: despite all parameters being optional in the schema, the caller should specify one of ordinSeq/id or ordinanceName. It omits the query alias, but the main identifier-selection rule is useful.

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-and-resource combination: it extracts superior statutes cited by an ordinance and compares effective dates to flag provisions needing review. This is far more precise than the title alone, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as legal_analysis or search_law.

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?

It gives a clear use context — ordinance officials tracking amendments to superior laws and deciding whether an ordinance needs maintenance. It does not state when to use this instead of alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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