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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned record — notably that the Status list includes articles struck down by the Constitutional Court with case numbers and per-article implementing regulations — which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about pagination, size limits, or latency, but those are minor here.

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 one-line purpose, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of record contents, then use cases. The middle clause is a long run-on list, but nearly every item earns its place by telling the agent what it can retrieve.

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 full burden of describing returns, and it does so comprehensively — covering identifying metadata, abstract, commission, amendment/revocation history, constitutional review outcomes, implementing regulations, and the PDF. Combined with usage examples and a required dpr_id pointing back to idn_list_statutes, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context by explaining the DPR register origin and illustrating the type family (statute vs executive instrument), but it contributes no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (one Indonesian statute/executive instrument record) and enumerates exactly what the record contains: number, year, dates, abstract, DPR commission, Status list, implementing regulations, PDF. This is clearly distinguishable from idn_list_statutes (which supplies the dpr_id) and idn_regulation_detail.

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 three concrete example queries that map directly onto this tool's data ('which articles of UU 13/2003 were annulled by the Constitutional Court', 'implementing regulations of Cipta Kerja', 'abstract of UU 1/2026'), which effectively communicates when to reach for it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions (e.g., idn_regulation_detail, idn_mk_review_detail), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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