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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral nuance that this is a pre-flight check for content that text tools hide. It discloses the detection categories rather than just repeating the read-only signal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and target, and every clause adds information. The trailing 'norm.' is cryptic and unexplained, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 detection tool with a documented schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it, but with no output schema it does not describe the shape of the detection result. The unexplained 'norm.' also leaves a small gap in what the agent should do with the output.

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%: both lang and eli_version are already documented, including the eli_version format. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the general notion of xml:lang, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Detect'), a specific resource ('Fassung'), and concrete artifacts it surfaces ('sections in another language (xml:lang)' and '<foreign> islands'). This makes the tool's niche clear and distinguishes it from the read_document/read_article text tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

'Use before quoting' is an explicit, actionable trigger telling an agent when to call this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection among the fedlex siblings.

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