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 useful context beyond that: cost of 1 credit, no billing on empty results, ranking behavior (codes/laws before decrees/orders), and an authority caveat about consolidated vs Monitorul Oficial text.

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 and front-loaded: purpose and query forms first, then ranking, then return value, then cost and source caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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, but the description explains what is returned (act ids) and the cost model, plus source authority. The main gap is the undocumented filter parameters (type/year/number/limit), which an agent would need to use the tool fully.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It richly illustrates the 'q' parameter with citation formats, but says nothing about 'type', 'year', 'number', or 'limit' semantics beyond what the schema already shows.

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 (Finds) and resource (Romanian normative acts on legislatie.just.ro), with concrete citation examples ('Legea 31/1990', 'Codul fiscal'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings get_legal_act and get_legal_article by positioning itself as the discovery step that returns act ids.

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 downstream: 'Returns act ids for get_legal_act / get_legal_article', which tells the agent this is the entry point before fetching content. It also gives query-form examples, though it doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you already have an act id).

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