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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable interpretive context beyond those: the draft/published editorial status, the assimilated-law caveat on GB notes, anchor provenance, and the critical distinction that anything not method='human' is evidence, not a finding. This gives the agent significant insight into the meaning and reliability of returned data.

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 one dense sentence that opens with the overall purpose ('Everything a topic page shows') and then lists the components and their nuances in compact parentheticals. There is no filler or repetition — every clause earns its place, including the important 'evidence, not a finding' caveat.

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 description gives a comprehensive inventory of the returned content categories, which is especially important because there is no output schema. It stops short of specifying exact field shapes, ordering, or error behavior, but for a one-parameter read-only fetch this is largely sufficient.

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% and the only parameter conceptId is already documented with a concrete example. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 states the tool's scope as 'Everything a topic page shows' and enumerates the exact content categories: orientation paragraph with editorial status, per-jurisdiction legal-status notes, anchored provisions with provenance, transposition links, and related instruments. This specificity distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like lookup_provision, provisions_by_concept, and related_works, even without naming them.

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 implies the tool should be used when the full topic page is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions. For example, an agent is not told to use provisions_by_concept if only provisions are needed. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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