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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the result contains verification/source status and warns that unverified versions must not be used to assert application. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what the name or schema conveys.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second adds a precise usage cue and a critical safety warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the low complexity of two self-named parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is returned, when to use the tool, and a data-quality constraint. It could be more complete with output structure or parameter format examples, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only refers generically to 'a specific article' and adds no format, examples, or disambiguation for law_name or article_number. The parameter names are self-explanatory, yet no additional semantics are provided to help with edge cases or value formatting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the amendment history of a specific article, including version history, amendment notation, and verification/source status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_article, which presumably returns current article text, and search_articles, which searches rather than returns history.

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 explicitly says to use this for 'when did it change' questions, giving clear invocation context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a fully explicit usage-versus-alternative guide.

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