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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description goes further by detailing return values: separate English and Chinese version dates, equal authenticity under Cap. 5 s.4B, in-force status, type, and section count. This is substantial behavioral context, especially valuable because no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads purpose and input syntax in one dense but efficient sentence, then lists return fields and source. No filler; every clause contributes needed context.

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 adequately explains what metadata is returned and the key nuances (separate version dates, equal authenticity). Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers inputs, so the definition is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%; both cap and title are fully documented in the schema with examples and usage notes. The description repeats the same example formats and exact/partial title guidance without adding new semantic meaning.

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 (Resolve) and resource (Hong Kong Ordinance/subsidiary legislation/instrument) with scope (metadata by Cap number or title). The phrase 'the exact-citation step before reading a section' distinguishes it from sibling section-reading and search tools.

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?

Provides clear context: use this as the exact-citation step before reading a section. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g., hk_law_search) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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