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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds some context about the output (metadata + TOC) and input formats, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like auth requirements or rate limits. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and what is returned, second gives parameter guidance and alternative tool. Front-loaded, no extraneous 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?

Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return content, parameter format, and alternative tool. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has only one parameter 'lov' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining it can be a lovdata-id (e.g., 2005-05-20-28) or a short title (e.g., straffeloven), adding crucial semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'slå opp' (look up) and resource 'lov' (law), and specifies it returns metadata + table of contents (paragraph headings). This distinguishes it from sibling 'get_law_section' which returns the text of a single paragraph.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get metadata and TOC) and when to use the alternative 'get_law_section' (for the actual text of a paragraph). Also provides details on the 'lov' parameter format (lovdata-id or korttittel).

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