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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the returned data fields (name, category, status, article count, last sync, links), which goes beyond annotations and clarifies the output.

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 description is a single bilingual sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output fields. It is concise, with no filler or redundant content beyond the bilingual presentation, which is appropriate for the Latvian 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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and low complexity. The description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns, making it complete for its scope. No additional behavioral details are necessary.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter 'slug' with a clear explanation ('from search_laws result'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats that it works 'by slug' without adding further meaning, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Overview of one law by slug' and enumerates the specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_law_article, which retrieves an article, and search_laws, which searches for laws.

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 description implies the usage context: you need a slug from a prior search_laws result, as indicated in the parameter description. This gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stays at 4.

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