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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It explains that the tool verifies wording against one element and serves as evidence in the citation chain. It does not describe return values or edge-case behavior, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 guidance is concise and front-loaded: check a quote against one element, use before citing. However, the trailing fragment 'norm.' appears to be a stray or incomplete word that adds confusion without earning its place.

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 read-only tool with four fully documented parameters, the description provides sufficient workflow context and scope. It omits return-format details, but no output schema exists and the purpose statement makes the intended outcome inferable. Minor gaps such as language defaults are already covered by the parameter schema.

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 each parameter is already well documented (eli_version, eid, quote, lang). The description adds only the 'one element' scope and the citation-proof purpose, so it does not need to compensate for missing schema semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Check a quote') against a specific resource ('the norm text of one element'), and further clarifies its role in the workflow: 'use before citing, to prove the wording is in what was read.' This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like fedlex.cite or fedlex.read_article.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: before citing, to verify that a quote is supported by the source read. It does not enumerate exclusions or name alternative tools, but the intended usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly among siblings.

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