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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: it explains that a miss returns found:false with next-step guidance and never throws, that only an outage is an error, how ambiguous citations (e.g., a VwSlg without a part letter) are handled, and the deterministic nature of resolution. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 quite long but every section earns its place: the opening sentence states purpose and scope, then each route is detailed with examples, and it ends with behavior and alternative tools. It is well-structured with clear separators, though it could be tightened slightly—the nested parentheticals and long enumerations make it dense. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (four routes, multiple optional parameters, ambiguity handling) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return shape (same as corresponding search tool, with alternatives_count), behavior on miss (found:false with guidance), error conditions, date handling, state and court hints, and examples. 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?

While schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the tool description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains how 'kind' relates to the four routes, when to set it, how 'court' short-circuits detection and lists which courts are excluded, how 'state' routes to specific law series, and provides concrete example citations for the 'citation' parameter. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve a single Austrian legal citation to its canonical RIS document deterministically — no keyword search.' It then enumerates four specific citation routes (norm, gazette, case number, collection number) with concrete examples, and explicitly contrasts with keyword search tools. This both states a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like ris_search_legislation and ris_search_case_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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For keyword rather than citation lookup, use ris_search_legislation or ris_search_case_law.' It also explains when to set 'kind' (when citation shape is ambiguous), 'court' (to skip detection), and 'state' (to route to state law), covering all relevant usage conditions.

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