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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the 2-credit cost, no charge when not found, the legislatie.just.ro source, and the caveat that consolidated forms are unofficial while Monitorul Oficial text is authentic.

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?

The description is front-loaded with what is returned, then follows with a concrete use case, cost behavior, and source/authenticity caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no wasted text.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description explains the returned content well: consolidation dates, version ids, amendment dates, what changed, and by which act. It is nearly complete, though it could specify the id format more precisely.

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 50%, with article already described but id undocumented. The description compensates partially by explaining that id refers to a whole act while article limits the result to one article, but it does not specify the expected id format or further clarify the article parameter.

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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: consolidation dates with version ids and a dated amendment list for a whole act or one article. It clearly distinguishes this historical lookup from current-text siblings such as get_legal_act and get_legal_article by focusing on amendments and in-force dates.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'what was the VAT rule on date X', which tells the agent this is for temporal/version-specific legal questions. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or route to alternatives like get_legal_act, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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