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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and open-world access. The description adds that the tool is keyless and describes returned content (title, full German text, footnote when attached), though it does not mention rate limits or error behavior.

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 a single tight paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by accepted input forms, return value summary, and usage examples. Every sentence contributes relevant information.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (title, full text, footnote), input flexibility, and keyless access. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so no critical context is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including accepted natural forms for provision and abbreviation/title forms for law. The description repeats some of this but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetching the full text of a single § or Art. of a German federal law/ordinance by abbreviation and provision number. It is clear enough to distinguish this from general search tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as gesetze_law_info or gesetze_structure.

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?

It gives explicit use examples ('what does § 823 BGB say' or 'Art 1 GG'), which clearly indicate when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the examples provide concrete context.

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