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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: discloses a 1-credit cost, the default page size of 50 articles, the offline cache for core codes, and an authenticity caveat that consolidated forms are unofficial and only Monitorul Oficial is authoritative. These are exactly the operational and trust facts an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then cost and sourcing caveats at the end. The single dense sentence carrying the field inventory is heavy, but essentially every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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 carries the return-shape burden itself and does so by listing the fields of both the act header and each article. Combined with cost, paging, and provenance, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 33%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names the id as a legislatie.just.ro id sourced from search_legislation, and explains offset/limit as article-level paging with a default of 50. It stops short of noting the limit cap of 200 or offset semantics beyond paging.

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 (fetch current consolidated text of a Romanian act) keyed on a legislatie.just.ro id, and enumerates the returned structure (title, issuer, publication, consolidation date, versions, articles). The parenthetical '(from search_legislation)' anchors it against a sibling, and 'split by article' implicitly separates it from get_legal_article.

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 routes the agent to search_legislation to obtain the id and flags that six core codes work offline, which is real selection guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_legal_article or get_legal_act_history instead, so no true exclusion guidance.

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