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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: 2-credit cost, no charge when nothing is found, upstream source (legislatie.just.ro / Ministry of Justice), and a caveat that consolidated forms are unofficial while only Monitorul Oficial text is authentic. It omits pagination, auth requirements, and result-size behavior, so not 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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then use case, then cost, then source/disclaimer. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler; the dense final sentence still earns its place by covering provenance and data-authenticity caveats.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so in detail (version ids, amendment entries, dates). Cost, billing, and data-quality caveats cover the missing annotations. The remaining gap is the origin/format of the required 'id' parameter.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that the request can target a whole act or a single article, matching the id/article pair. However, it never says what 'id' is or where to obtain it (e.g., from search_legislation), leaving the required parameter semantically opaque.

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 ('amendment history') plus concrete return content: consolidation dates with version ids and a dated amendment list with date-in-force, what changed, and by which act. The temporal-query framing ('what was the VAT rule on date X') inherently separates it from the current-text siblings get_legal_act and 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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario plus scope ('a whole act or one article'), which tells the agent when to reach for it. It never names the alternatives (get_legal_act, get_legal_article for current text) or states exclusions, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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