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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered, and the response signals has_more/next_offset when the law exceeds the page size. It stops short of describing how name matching or fallback to pcode resolution behaves.

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?

Two sentences, densely packed, with the core definition front-loaded before the usage routing and the return-value note. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden and does so: it names what is returned (headings and article numbers, in order) and the pagination envelope (has_more, next_offset). Combined with the usage routing to tw_law_article, an agent has everything needed to call and continue 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 name, pcode, limit and offset are already documented in the schema, including where pcode comes from. The description only reiterates paging ('paged') without adding format or precedence rules, e.g. what happens if both name and pcode are supplied. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Table of contents for one Taiwan law: its chapter/section headings and the article number of every provision, in order, paged.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools tw_law_article (full text), tw_law_search (find a law) and tw_law_info (metadata) without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('browse a law's structure before reading a specific article') and names the alternative tool that takes over at the next step ('with tw_law_article'), plus a second valid use case ('enumerate every article number a long law has'). The routing condition is unambiguous.

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