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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' wording aligns with that. The description adds some useful context about the use case, but beyond that it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or how eli vs. draft is prioritized.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds important usage context. The trailing word 'hint.' adds no value and is slightly confusing, preventing a perfect 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 list-style read-only tool with four fully documented parameters, the description gives enough orientation: it identifies the resource, the output flavor ('status and dates'), and the intended use case. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact response structure would be helpful, but the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents eli, draft, limit, and status. The description adds the high-level relationship between 'act's drafts' and 'one draft', but it doesn't enrich individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('consultations of an act's drafts or of one draft'), and it distinguishes the tool by adding 'with status and dates' and 'never for law in force.' This makes it easy for an agent to tell it apart from similar Fedlex tools like get_consultation_documents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it ('use for the genesis') and when not to ('never for law in force'). It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, which keeps it slightly below a 5, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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