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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns both current laws and their past versions, along with fields lawId, title, and text. It does not cover pagination or response limits, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with the resource and return fields front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the first establishes what is returned, and the second provides domain context for why the data matters.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned fields and explains how the data is used. Minor gaps remain around pagination and explicit selection guidance versus list_jurisdictions, but the definition is adequate for correct 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% and the single jurisdictionId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 identifies the exact resource: current laws plus past versions for a jurisdiction, including the key fields lawId, title, and text. It is clear what data is returned, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_jurisdictions.

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 workflow context—laws are charged by lawId when filing and cited in verdicts—implying the tool should be used in filing and judging scenarios. However, it never states when to call this tool rather than list_jurisdictions or other retrieval tools, nor does it list preconditions or exclusions.

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