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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: a per-call cost of 0.005 USDC on Base via x402, that only successful calls are charged and errors are free, and that the response includes previous/next section ids.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by cost terms. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 usefully discloses the return shape (full section text plus adjacent section ids) and the billing model. It omits error/rate-limit behavior and authentication requirements for the x402 payment, but is otherwise sufficient for a two-parameter read tool.

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 both parameters (id format and section format) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the parenthetical '(§ or artikkel)', which hints at notation variety but adds little beyond the schema's own examples.

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 full text of one section of a current Norwegian law or regulation, and notes the § / artikkel notation. The word 'one section' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_law (whole law), but the alternative is never named, so the differentiation is left 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs a specific section rather than a whole law. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g. obtaining the Lovdata id via search_laws) or on when get_law would be preferable.

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