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 covered. The description adds the future-effective-date filter and intent, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination defaults, or response shape beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 short clauses in Latvian and English, front-loaded with the object and scope. It contains no redundant filler and is immediately scannable.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and a clear output concept (laws and amendments), the description fully explains what it returns and when to use it. No output schema is needed for a simple list of this kind.

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%—the limit parameter has its default and maximum documented. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but none is needed given the schema already provides the essential semantics.

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 resource (Latvian laws and amendments) and the scope (future effective date), distinguishing it from recently_changed_laws by temporal direction. It also provides a concrete query it answers, such as 'what changes from August 1 / next year'.

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 an explicit use case and implies it should be used for future-dated changes rather than past changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool context (e.g., recently_changed_laws) reinforces the distinction.

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