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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses input constraints (do not use self-made IDs; do not send regulation title, shard, or local path), warns against redundant retrieval, and points to pasal_url. It does not state permissions or rate limits, but the read-only nature and presence of an output schema reduce the need for those details.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is organized into usage paths and constraints. Some workflow detail is verbose, but each paragraph adds routing or anti-pattern guidance rather than filler.

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 a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, parameter meaning, and common pitfalls. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains regulation_id as a six-digit ID from cari_peraturan_terkait or cari_judul_peraturan, and pasal as the article number from semantic_hit_pasals with examples '1', '5A', and '1336', adding format and source context beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('baca') and resource ('teks lengkap satu Pasal'), along with the precondition that regulation_id and nomor Pasal are known. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from baca_isi_pasal_batch, which is the sibling for multiple 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?

Provides explicit routing: use baca_isi_pasal_batch when several articles are needed, use this tool after cari_judul_peraturan for a known regulation/article, and avoid rereading results from cari_pasal_terkait. Covers when-to-use and alternatives clearly.

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