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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety burden is light. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: section_id expands a single branch, depth controls hierarchy levels, and branches exceeding provision_limit explicitly flag has_more_provisions rather than truncating silently. No return-format details, but the truncation contract is valuable disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter behavior. No filler; each sentence adds actionable information. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for a four-parameter browsing tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value burden, and it does so adequately: it names the heading hierarchy, the provision list, and the has_more_provisions sentinel. Branch-expansion and truncation semantics are covered; minor gaps around ordering or default-return shape remain but are not blocking.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the inter-parameter behavior: depth controls heading-level count, section_id must come from a previous answer and is used to expand one branch, and provision_limit interacts with has_more_provisions.

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+resource: returns the table of contents (Bücher/Abschnitte/Titel/Kapitel) of a German federal law with §/Art. provisions under each heading, sourced from Gesetze im Internet. Clearly distinguishable from gesetze_search (search) and gesetze_provision (single provision), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives clear use contexts: 'browse a law's structure or list the provisions of one chapter,' and the schema adds 'Call gesetze_search first if unsure.' No explicit when-not-to-use exclusions or named alternatives within the description itself, but the intended triggers are unambiguous.

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