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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the lookup may return only a criterion or excerpt rather than the full document, and a miss is not evidence of absence from the official source. It does not discuss auth or limits, but none seem relevant for a read-only local lookup.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and identifier formats, followed by the required follow-up workflow and the ambiguity/not-found caveats. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint; nothing is redundant.

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 one required parameter, no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns (criterion or excerpt), the mandatory read step, and how to interpret a miss. Only the exact identifier string format remains underspecified, which is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 'identifier' parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaning by naming the two accepted identifier schemes (DGT:consultation-number and DYCTEA:registry), but gives no concrete example, prefix syntax, or validation rules, leaving the agent to guess the exact string format.

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 ('Retrieve a specific tax administrative document') and narrows it to an exact-reference lookup by DGT:consultation-number or DYCTEA:registry. This cleanly separates it from the sibling search_administrative_documents (broad search) and read_administrative_document (full reading), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 says 'Use this first for an exact reference', mandates a follow-up read_administrative_document call even when the lookup returns content, and warns that ambiguous references need refinement and that not-found does not prove absence. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-conclude conditions are stated.

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