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

Besides readOnlyHint, the description adds an important behavioral trait: false is a valid answer and never an error. This prevents the agent from misinterpreting a negative result as a failed call.

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 sentence is compact and front-loaded, but the trailing 'norm.' is cryptic and uninformative. It adds noise to an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only boolean check the description provides the essential semantics: what is checked, the date, and how to interpret false. Without an output schema, the return-value behavior is sufficiently implied, though invalid-input behavior is not covered.

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 schema already documents as_of as an ISO date, and the description's 'on a date' adds little. The required eli parameter is not explained in either the schema or description, so the agent is left guessing what identifier to provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and a clear resource/scope ('an act was in force on a date'), which distinguishes it from the many fedlex lookup and search siblings. The German use-case phrase makes its intent concrete.

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?

It explicitly targets «gilt das noch?» questions and clarifies that a false result is legitimate rather than an error. It does not name alternative tools, but the intended context is clear enough for routing.

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