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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing pagination behavior (text_offset/text_has_more/text_next_offset) and the authoritative source, though it stops short of describing the returned text's format.

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?

Front-loads the action and resource, then layers in the routing hint, paging note, and source. Dense but each clause earns its place; only the trailing source attribution is close to expendable.

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 read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (original-language document text) and even hints at paging return fields. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the exact text payload shape left implicit.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the provenance of document_id (returned by the search/provision tools) and the paging role of text_offset, adding meaning the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch), a precise resource (original-language text of one Bundesrecht konsolidiert document), and the keying mechanism (RIS document id). It also names the sibling tools that produce the id, so an agent can distinguish this from at_search_legislation and at_get_provision without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: ids come from at_search_legislation or at_get_provision, and the tool exists to 're-fetch a known document's text without re-resolving its citation.' This is a clear when-to-use condition with the alternatives named.

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