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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it well: it separates `text` from `text_html`, explains that `norm_refs` dates statutes to the `ua_law` edition in force and yields a `urn` usable downstream, and flags that `approved_at` is not a publication date and its absence implies nothing about currency. That last caveat preempts a real misinterpretation an agent would otherwise make.

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 resource, then field-level notes in short paragraphs; nearly every sentence carries distinct information. The fragmentary, backtick-heavy style borders on cryptic (e.g. 'read from position texts') but nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the key returned fields and their pitfalls are covered, including how to use `norm_refs` downstream. Minor gaps remain: no mention of error behavior for a bad id or whether any other fields exist beyond those named.

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 100% and both the schema and description say the id comes from a search result, so the description adds little new meaning for the sole parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents the input.

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 the resource precisely — a single Supreme Court legal position — and enumerates what it carries (text, published markup). An agent can distinguish it from ua_lpd__search, which returns hits. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb, relying on 'Pass a search hit's `position_id`' to convey the fetch semantics.

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?

The prerequisite is clear: the id must come from a search result, which implicitly positions ua_lpd__search as the entry path. It also names ua_law__get_unit_fulltext as the follow-up for comparing statute text. No explicit when-not or exclusion guidance is given.

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