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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what is returned (the DPR id and a direct PDF link) and a real behavioral quirk: without a year, DPR shows only its newest few records.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then the type enumeration, then the return-value detail and usage examples. Slightly dense in the opening sentence but every clause earns its place.

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 usefully states what comes back (DPR id plus PDF link) and why the year filter matters. For a read-only, idempotent list tool with 100% schema coverage this is nearly complete, though a note on default ordering or result size would close the remaining gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the schema's year note ("strongly recommended") carries the key constraint. The description only restates the type list and the title-word filter, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 (List) and resource (Indonesian statutes and executive instruments) from a named register (DPR RI), enumerates the covered types, and names the sibling that consumes the returned id (idn_statute_detail). An agent can distinguish this from idn_search_regulations without opening either schema.

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 use-case phrasings ("all Indonesian laws enacted in 2020", "presidential regulations of 2024 about energy") and explains the downstream handoff to idn_statute_detail. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over idn_search_regulations, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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