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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by separating act-level formal citations from the foreseen-impact graph and noting that in|out are mostly consultation drafts. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but for a read-only listing tool the annotation lowers the bar.

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 core operation before listing direction options and usage. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though the wording around 'X. norm.' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and direction semantics. However, since there is no output schema, the lack of any description of return values or eli expectations leaves some uncertainty about how to interpret the result.

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 fully documents the direction parameter, but the eli parameter has no schema description and the tool description only implies it identifies an act ('an act's relations'). With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented eli parameter but does not explain its format or expected content.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('an act's relations') and distinguishes the four supported directions: cites|cited_by for formal citations and in|out for foreseen impacts. This is specific enough to separate the tool from generic relation-list tools.

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 intended use: 'use to see who cites X. norm.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it with similar siblings like fedlex.get_references or fedlex.explore_node, so alternative selection guidance is absent.

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