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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance by enumerating what comes back — Hebrew text, applicability, source document and section, dates in force, numeric values, exceptions, print_check, cite — but says nothing about behavior for a missing or unknown id or about response size.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first, then a field inventory. The list is long but each item carries information the agent cannot get elsewhere, since there is no output schema. Slight density cost but no wasted clauses.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately pre-loads the return shape by naming its key fields including the derived print_check and cite values. The remaining gap is error behavior for an unknown id on an openWorld tool, which an agent would want to know.

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 parameter already documents the id format with a pattern and example. The description only restates "by id" and adds no syntax, format, or lookup semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"One norm by id" states a specific resource and the singular retrieval scope, which implicitly separates it from search_norms. It never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts with it, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word "one".

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieve when you already hold a norm id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_norms, nor any prerequisite about where the id comes from (the schema, not the description, explains the URL-derived format).

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