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

Annotations already mark readOnly=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: pagination with next_offset is required for complete reads, summary_only means the original full text is absent, and results at an unresolved application time should not be supplemented with current law. These go well beyond the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences deliver behavioral warnings and usage constraints without redundancy. No filler or schema duplication.

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 5-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, supported types, pagination behavior, summary-only semantics, and a temporal caveat. It could more explicitly connect the evidence_id to search_tax and clarify the next_offset/offset relationship, but the output schema likely fills the return-value details.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the tool description carries a heavy load. It helps map evidence_type to concrete categories (e.g., case, ruling, article, treaty) and implies evidence_id comes from search_tax results, but it does not explain limit/offset usage, source_field selection, or the exact meaning of each parameter. The pagination comment touches offset indirectly but is not enough to fully compensate.

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 a specific action: reading the DB full text of evidence found by search_tax, and it enumerates supported evidence types. It distinguishes itself from search siblings by tying evidence_id to search_tax, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_article/get_annex/get_treaty_article for direct retrieval.

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 gives clear context: use this after search_tax to read full evidence text, paginate via next_offset for long content, and treat summary_only as non-full-text. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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