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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: extraction from the official NPC PDF because no per-article JSON field exists, explicit found:false fallback when the article cannot be located or the PDF cannot be read, and a no-fabrication guarantee.

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 three focused sentences with the key scope and source stated up front. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying either what is returned, where it comes from, or what happens on failure.

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 two-parameter, read-only extraction tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: exact scope, source PDF, input dependency on cn_search_laws, failure behavior, and the no-fabrication guarantee. No material gap remains for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces that id comes from cn_search_laws and that article is a single specific provision, but it adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: the Chinese text of one specific article/provision from a law, regulation, or judicial interpretation. It explicitly scopes the result as 'not the whole document' and links retrieval to cn_search_laws, which distinguishes it from whole-document siblings such as 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 description makes the intended workflow clear: this tool is used after cn_search_laws to retrieve one article, not an entire document. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with cn_law_detail or state what an agent should do when cn_search_laws yields no article id, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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