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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read operation, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: the return fields, pagination behavior, has_more/next_offset indicators, and point-in-time retrieval via as_of. No behavioral contradiction is present.

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 description is dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core fetch operation, then covers pagination, alternatives, point-in-time retrieval, and provenance. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the returned fields and explains pagination signals. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, it gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool 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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description nevertheless adds useful meaning by explaining that offset/limit are used to walk a long law and that as_of retrieves the version in force on a given date.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: fetching a Japanese law/ordinance by e-Gov law id. It distinguishes the tool from search_laws as the id source and from japan_law_get_article as the cheaper alternative for single articles, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the 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?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool versus japan_law_get_article, including the branch-article case, and notes that law ids come from search_laws. It also explains the as_of use case for retrieving a historical version, leaving little to inference.

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