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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-annotation context: the per-call cost (0.005 USDC via x402 on Base), that errors are free, and that only 'current' versions are returned. It does not describe truncation or partial-result behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no waste, with the payload contents front-loaded and the billing/error semantics trailing. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the currency of the data, and the cost model. The only meaningful gap is not indicating what to use for full text or a single section, which the sibling set implies but the description never says.

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% – the id parameter carries its own pattern, format example, and the advice to include the slash. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 ('Metadata for one current law or central regulation from Lovdata') and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, short title, date, ministry, last change, lovdata.no link, plus table of contents with section ids, chapters and headings. It implicitly contrasts with sibling search_laws by scoping to a single entity, but never names that sibling or get_law_section, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_laws (to find an id) or get_law_section (to fetch a specific section). The word 'one' hints that an id must already be known, but no routing rule or prerequisite is stated explicitly.

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