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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description's real contribution is the semantics of the three urn output fields and the '30000101'+ pending-edition convention, which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. However it says nothing about pagination for `relation` or what else the card contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, and the second sentence routes the agent to the right siblings. The urn paragraph is dense and telegraphic ("are none of these") but every line carries non-obvious information.

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the description appropriately spends its space explaining return-value semantics (current vs latest vs next edition, repealed-act null behavior, future-dated editions). What is missing is any coverage of the `relation` traversal mode and paging, which is a real usability gap for a 3-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all: `nreg`, `relation` and `offset` are never mentioned. In particular the `relation` parameter's reference to a `relation_counts` name and the 50-per-page paging behavior are left unexplained by the description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and scope: "One act's card, by registration number", making the lookup-by-nreg nature unmistakable. The explicit "No text" distinguishes it from the fulltext siblings, though the word "card" is jargon whose actual contents (metadata fields) are never enumerated.

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 direct routing rule for the main ambiguity: if you want text, use `get_document_toc` then `get_unit_fulltext`. It does not say when to prefer this over `ua_law__get_unit`, `get_unit_editions`, or `search`, nor what to do if the registration number is unknown.

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