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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the tool is free, does not mutate the corpus, performs no retrieval/PDF fetch, and grants no automatic credit. Missing only auth requirements and rate limits, which prevents a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a clean Args block; every parameter gets one line. Slightly verbose in the negative-capability sentence but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With all six params documented, usage gated on evidence, and side-effect behavior disclosed, an agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 fully, and it does: it documents all six parameters, including the seven-value issue_type enum (which the schema lacks), the source of regulation_id, and length/format constraints (1–2000 chars, HTTP(S) no credentials, max 1000 chars).

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+resource: reporting suspected Aturan.org data for human reviewer verification. This is clearly distinguishable from the read/search siblings (baca_isi_pasal, cari_*), which retrieve rather than report.

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 states when to use ('hanya setelah ada evidence yang cukup') and gives concrete exclusions: don't fabricate regulation_id, don't report merely because a regulation was amended. This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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