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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the returned text is full Spanish as published by OGP and never machine-translated, resolution is limited to two verified títulos because LPRA aggregates many acts, and the response includes the source PDF URL and data_as_of. These are exactly the constraints an agent needs and cannot get from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry useful information, but the description is dense with nested parenthetical asides and a trailing keyword-stuffing clause (Spanish statute vocabulary) that is more SEO than agent guidance. Slightly over-burdened but far from wasteful.

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 fully carries the return-value burden (heading, full Spanish text, source PDF URL, data_as_of) and covers accepted citation formats plus resolution limits. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already gives citation examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining which citation forms actually resolve (LPRA only for verified títulos) and clarifying the alternate act-number+article form, which affects how the single parameter should be constructed.

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 (Get) and resource (the text of a Puerto Rico "ley"/act) with the retrieval key (citation), and immediately distinguishes itself from a mere search by specifying it returns the act text. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus the pr_search sibling.

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 explicit when-it-works and when-it-does-not guidance: LPRA citations resolve ONLY for Título 31 and 33, and for unmapped títulos the agent should look up the ley by its own number instead. It does not, however, name the sibling tool (e.g. pr_search) to route to for the unmapped case, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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