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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context: it returns the verbatim current text, implying source-of-truth and up-to-date content, and warns against relying on model memory. This goes beyond the annotation fields.

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 two concise sentences (bilingual) that immediately state the core function and usage rule. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant content.

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 read-only tool with two clearly described parameters, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and expected output (verbatim full text). No output schema exists, but the description already states the return semantics, making the tool sufficiently complete.

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 100%, with both parameters (law_slug and article_number) fully described. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it is unnecessary given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the full verbatim text of one article from the current official version. It uses a specific verb (get/retrieve) and resource (law article), and the emphasis on 'never from memory' distinguishes it from model memory and from sibling search tools like search_law_articles.

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 gives explicit guidance to use this tool for citation purposes and never from memory. It provides a clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond 'not memory'.

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