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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a 1-credit cost, the authoritative source, and the caveat that consolidated forms are unofficial while only Monitorul Oficial text is authentic — a meaningful trust signal for a legal-data tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core scope and window come first, with cost, source and authenticity caveats trailing. Every clause carries information, though the single long sentence is slightly harder to scan than a split structure would be.

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 compensates by enumerating the act types returned and the source. Cost, window limits and authenticity caveats round out what an agent needs to call and trust the result; only the return shape (fields, pagination) is left implicit.

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 0% and the single `since` parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry the load — and it does, defining the filter as an in-force date on/after `since`, plus the default (7 days) and maximum (35) window. It does not state the expected date format, which the schema pattern covers but the description does not reinforce.

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 ('Acts newly indexed by legislatie.just.ro') and enumerates the act types returned (laws, ordinances, decisions, orders, court decisions). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_legal_act (single act) and search_legislation (query-based 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?

Gives a clear usage context: a recency window with a default of 7 days and a hard cap of 35, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_legislation for older or keyword-based lookups, 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.