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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states the output's scope (concise pack), content (official URLs, scope limits), and an explicit limitation (no legal-compliance verdict). Absent side effects are not a concern for a retrieval tool, though read-only behavior is not named.

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-load the primary action and scope, then append the content and the critical limitation. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the result contains and what it deliberately omits. It is slightly light on the exact shape of the returned evidence pack, but this is a minor gap.

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 already documents the only parameter as 'Exact rule ID returned by search_rules', and the description repeats that same relationship without adding format, type, or usage nuance. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (Return), a specific resource (a concise evidence pack), and a precise input scope (one rule ID returned by search_rules). It also states what the pack includes, making the tool distinguishable from search_rules.

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 clearly situates the tool after search_rules by requiring a rule ID returned by that sibling, so an agent knows when to call it. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' statement, but with only one sibling the routing is unambiguous.

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