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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns historical amendment and consolidation information with dates. It does not describe the response structure, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a read-only query tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the behavior and the intended question in a compact way. The trailing '. norm.' adds minor noise and slightly weakens the structure, but overall the description is tight and useful.

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?

With two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it tells the agent what the tool traces, what entity it operates on, and what kind of information (amendments, consolidations, dates) the result contains. It does not enumerate specific return fields, but for a history-tracing tool this is adequate.

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%, with both eid and eli clearly documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that eid identifies 'one Artikel' and that eli refers to an act, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb, "Trace," and names the exact resource: amendments and consolidations that changed one Artikel (eId) of an act, including dates. This clearly communicates the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate it from close siblings like fedlex.get_modifications or fedlex.compare_versions, but the intent is still clear.

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 gives an explicit use case: «seit wann gilt Art. X so?» (since when does Art. X read this way?), which tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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