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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the result set is split into soon-to-enter-into-force acts, recently passed acts, and Sejm bills, and content includes plain-language summaries. It does not mention freshness, caching, or that only Polish law is covered beyond the implicit source names.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the source-of-law scope is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a clause with a verb, which slightly slows scanning, but nothing is 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 shape need not be described; the description still communicates the three result groups and that summaries are plain-language. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly with zero required parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents days, limit, and topic with ranges and examples. The description adds only a loose correspondence — 'entering into force soon and recently' maps to the days look-back, and the four topical domains hint at valid topic keys — without expanding syntax or defaults. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific resource (acts of the Journal of Laws and Monitor Polski, plus Sejm bills) and enumerates the covered domains (personal finance, tax, labour, housing). An agent can tell it retrieves legislative content, though there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from the closest sibling, get_legal_limits, which an agent could easily confuse with 'law changes'.

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 domain scope implicitly signals when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no routing to or from siblings such as get_legal_limits or get_macro_changes. The agent must infer the split between 'limits' and 'changes' entirely from the names.

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