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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world lookup. The description adds useful context about returned content and source, but does not mention size limits, pagination, authentication, or response format details.

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 tight sentences with the core resource and return content front-loaded. The source sentence adds provenance without unnecessary repetition.

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 usefully states that the tool returns full Chinese text and revision-date history. For a simple one-parameter detail lookup with rich annotations, this is nearly complete, though it could better position the tool against related text/detail siblings.

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%, and the law_id description already explains that it is the record id from cn_search_admin_regulations. The main description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource and return content: full Chinese text of one administrative regulation plus revision-date history. It also ties the tool to cn_search_admin_regulations, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cn_law_article_text or cn_law_detail.

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 phrase "found via cn_search_admin_regulations" implies the intended workflow: use search first, then fetch the selected regulation's full text. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison with alternative detail/text tools.

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