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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost (1 credit), the data source, that consolidated forms are unofficial and only Monitorul Oficial text is authentic, and that it's informational. This goes beyond typical disclosure, but it doesn't mention return format, pagination, or rate limits.

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?

Single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds operational details. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded, though the parenthetical enumeration makes it slightly long but still efficient.

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?

Given 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what acts are included, date filtering rules, cost, source, and authenticity caveat. It could be improved with a note on return structure or pagination, but overall it's complete for this simple 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the `since` parameter, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains: `since` is an in-force date, defaults to last 7 days, max range 35 days. This fully clarifies the parameter's semantics beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 names the specific resource (newly indexed legal acts from legislatie.just.ro), enumerates act types (laws, ordinances, ministerial orders, court decisions), and scopes it to those with an in-force date on/after `since`. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_legal_act (specific act) and search_legislation (search).

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 creates a clear context: this is for recently indexed acts, with a default of last 7 days and max 35. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over search_legislation or get_legal_act, though the temporal and 'newly indexed' framing provides strong implicit guidance.

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