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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds real behavioral context beyond that: title resolution to a law number, per-date Fassung selection, and that long text is paged rather than silently truncated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and scope come first, then per-parameter behavior, then paging, then source attribution. Each sentence contributes, though the block is long enough to be slightly heavy for what is a five-parameter lookup.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing return fields (publication, in-force-from/until dates, and the text_offset/text_has_more/text_next_offset paging signals). This covers enough for correct invocation, though it doesn't characterize error or not-found behavior.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that 'law' resolves a title/abbreviation to a Gesetzesnummer first and that 'as_of' picks the Fassung valid on that date, adding resolution semantics the schema only hints at.

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 and resource: retrieve the original-language German text of ONE provision of Austrian federal law as of a date. The granularity ('one provision' with §/Article/Annex) implicitly distinguishes it from document-level siblings like at_get_legislation_document, but it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 explains how the tool behaves but never states when to choose it over at_get_legislation_document or at_search_legislation. Usage is only implied by the 'one provision' scope, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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