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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the return fields (name, amendment date, link) and the scope (laws and Cabinet regulations with amendments in force), which is helpful given no output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the exact purpose, and the second provides the return format. Bilingual but efficient with no redundant words.

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 is simple, with two optional parameters and strong annotations. The description covers purpose, return fields, and resource scope. It could mention sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list tool, and the presence of annotations and full schema coverage raises the baseline.

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 days and limit already documented with sensible descriptions. The description only reiterates the time-window concept via 'last N days' and does not add further meaning beyond the schema. 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 identifies the tool as listing recently amended Latvian laws (including Cabinet regulations) within a specified time window, using a specific verb and resource. It answers the question 'kas mainījies šonedēļ / šomēnes' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_laws or get_law.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to find laws with recent amendments, answering 'what changed this week/month'. It implies the use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the sibling context makes the distinction obvious.

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