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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is content disclosure: exactly which relations are returned (what amends/revokes it and vice versa, implementing regulations, judicial review) plus the source of authority. It adds real context beyond the annotations, though nothing about coverage limits or partial 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?

The payload is front-loaded (what the record contains) before the usage examples, and both sentences earn their place. It is dense with field enumeration but not padded; a slightly tighter phrasing of the relations list would improve it.

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 present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the title, status, gazette numbers, dates, PDF, and every relation category. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the required key, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and each of the three parameters (type with an enumerated list, year, number) is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the composite key ("by type, number and year") and adds no format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: fetch the full register record for a single Indonesian regulation keyed by type/number/year. It enumerates the returned fields (title, legal status, gazette numbers, dates, signed PDF, amendment/revocation relations) and names the source (JDIH jdih.setneg.go.id), which clearly separates it from search/list siblings like idn_search_regulations and idn_list_statutes.

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?

Explicit usage triggers are given via concrete example queries ("details of UU 6/2023", "what amended PP 5/2021", "get the PDF of Perpres 40/2026"). It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name a disambiguating alternative (e.g. idn_statute_detail vs idn_regulation_detail), so routing among near-identical siblings is left to inference.

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