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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job: it discloses the temporal scope (promulgated but not yet effective), the returned content (effective date, law, changed provisions), and the intended verification role. Minor details like ordering or default scope when law_name is omitted are not covered, but they are not critical for this simple read-only list.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, the second lists the returned fields, and the third gives the use case. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant wording.

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 simple one-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers what is returned, the temporal state of the data, and when to use it. It does not include a formal output schema, but it does summarize the return contents, making the tool adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, law_name, with a filter description and an 'omitted means all' note, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns amendments that have been promulgated but are not yet in force, with effective date, statute, and changed provisions. It also distinguishes this tool from current-law lookups by warning not to rely on current provisions for future tax periods.

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 states when to use the tool: for questions involving future tax periods, as a confirmation check before answering from current provisions. It clearly implies the exclusion of current-only tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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