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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it says exactly what is returned (text in force today or on `date`, entry-into-force and end dates, livre/titre/chapitre placement, NOTA, all versions) and where the data comes from, which builds trust in authority of the source.

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?

Purpose and lookup key are front-loaded, then return contents, then example queries. The long enumeration of code names is somewhat padded, but it does aid discovery by matching how users refer to codes. Overall efficient, with only mild verbosity in the code list.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly (in-force text, dates, hierarchy, NOTA, versions). Combined with full schema coverage and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the sibling boundary against fr_article_versions remains unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including accepted code forms and article number formats. The description only restates 'by code and article number' and reiterates the date semantics already present in the `date` parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 (Read) plus resource (an article of an official French code), the lookup key (code + article number) and the authoritative source (DILA's consolidated LEGI base). It is highly specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fr_article_versions even though it also returns 'every version of the article with dates', leaving a small ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 concrete triggering queries ('what does article 1240 of the Code civil say', 'Code du travail L1221-1', 'article 121-3 du Code pénal'), which is clear usage context. It never states when NOT to use it, nor names the alternatives (fr_legi_search for keyword search, fr_code_toc for structure, fr_article_versions for version history).

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