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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the output is the verbatim clause text, with no note on lookup failure behavior for invalid references or coverage gaps.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the return contract and format examples. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential trigger, action, and input format. Only the invalid-reference behavior remains unstated.

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 0% — the single 'ref' parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does so reasonably by giving the expected format types ('6.2.6', '11.2.4', 'Table 6-G'), though it doesn't state whether the number must be quoted, normalized, or exact.

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 and resource ('Returns the UDCPR text of a regulation or table by its number') and anchors it with concrete example references. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_udcpr (direct lookup by number vs. search), though it never names that 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?

'Use this when someone asks what a specific UDCPR regulation or table says' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name search_udcpr as the fallback for fuzzy/topic queries, so exclusions are left to inference.

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