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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context about how the returned text must be treated (facts and questions do not establish the answer, preserve classification and conditions, do not presume binding effect, validity or applicability). This is meaningful interpretive behavior disclosure for a legal-source reader, though it says nothing about version resolution behavior or what happens when a section is unavailable.

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?

The passage is dense but front-loaded, with the core read action first and constraints after, and no redundant restatement of the title. A few phrases are compressed to the point of ambiguity ("Facts and questions do not establish the answer", "Check available_sections") and would benefit from one clarifying clause each.

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?

For a 7-parameter reader with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the primary selection and paging mechanics adequately but leaves the q search parameter and start_char unexplained, and it references an available_sections field that the agent has no schema to interpret. It is workable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains section (three of ten enum values), limit (1-5) and pagination via offset, plus the version-pinned notion behind version_id, but leaves q, start_char, id and the remaining enum values (ruling, antecedents, tax_facts, normative_references, etc.) entirely unexplained.

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 a concrete verb and resource ("Read version-pinned literal administrative passages") and specifies which section kinds can be requested (tax_answer, administrative_criterion, legal_grounds), which separates it from the pure lookup/search siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with lookup_administrative_document or search_administrative_documents, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives operative guidance for choosing a section value and states the limit constraint (1 to 5 paragraphs) with an instruction to paginate for more, which are real usage rules. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling lookup/search tools, and the instruction "Check available_sections" points at a field that is not documented anywhere in the definition.

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