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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful scope constraint that only adopted amendments with a date are included, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or what a 'change' record looks like — and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

One short sentence with the scoping clause front-loaded and no wasted wording. Slight loss for the parenthetical clarification, which is compact but reads as an afterthought rather than structured context.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers scope adequately. But with no output schema, it never indicates what a returned 'change' contains (old vs new text, status, effective date) or how results are ordered, leaving an agent guessing about the response.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the act filter formats and the days maximum of 30. The description reinforces the time-window concept with 'in the next days' but adds no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and filter: articles whose text or status changes within the next days, restricted to adopted amendments that carry a date. An agent can distinguish this from generic retrieval siblings like get_articles, though it never explicitly says it returns a list or names the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'adopted amendments with a date', which effectively states the inclusion condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_article or search_law for current (non-upcoming) content.

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