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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pricing model ($0.05 per call, x402 payment) and outlines return fields (title, identifier, nature, date, legal status). It implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly, which is acceptable for a search/lookup tool.

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 verbose and repeats information (e.g., mentions 'Official Légifrance' and 'French law' multiple times). It includes pricing which is useful but could be more concise. The structure is not fully front-loaded; key information like 'keyword search' and 'text lookup' appears later.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields and distinguishes between search and lookup modes. It covers corpus options and default. However, it lacks examples or edge cases (e.g., handling of missing IDs or invalid corpuses).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It restates the two usage modes (keyword + corpus or text_id) but does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

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 searches and looks up French legal texts on Légifrance, specifying verbs 'search' and 'lookup' and the resource 'French legal texts, codes and articles'. It distinguishes from sibling eurlex_search by explicitly complementing EUR-Lex on the national French side.

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 provides clear context: it is for French law search/lookup, complements EUR-Lex, and is intended for 'legal-research, regulatory and compliance agents'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the mention of EUR-Lex as the EU counterpart gives implicit guidance.

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