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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful response-shape context (Acts with counts, year-based listing for big topics) but says nothing about truncation behavior for max_chars, which is the key behavioral risk on a read tool returning potentially 60k+ characters.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return content before the conditional year rule. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('pass year to read one') but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return shape reasonably well. It leaves two gaps an agent would care about: what happens when a big topic is queried without year, and how truncation via max_chars is surfaced.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, giving a baseline of 3. The description's note on year largely restates the schema's own wording, and it adds nothing about max_chars beyond the schema's 'Default 60000'.

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 names a specific resource (Acts and regulations in force on one topic) and states what the response contains (a per-Act regulation count), which is far more informative than the title's 'Read a topic page'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_law or search_laws, so it stops short of a 5.

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 conditional guidance for one path: 'Big topics list regulations by year: pass year to read one,' which tells the agent when the year parameter is needed. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_law or search_laws, and no statement of what happens if year is omitted on a big topic.

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