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

The description's 'Read' aligns with readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction. It adds the fact that this exposes a profile rather than full text, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as response shape, pagination, or error behavior; with the annotation carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with a parenthetical list of returned fields and a clear use case. The trailing 'norm.' fragment adds no signal and prevents 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 simple read-only metadata lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the invocation: input ELI, optional as_of, expected profile fields, and use case. Minor gaps like defining JOLux are not essential to 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?

The description clarifies the ELI as the lookup key, compensating for the schema's undocumented 'eli' property. The optional 'as_of' parameter is already fully described in the schema, so together the meaning of all parameters is covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the JOLux profile of an act' for an ELI, and enumerates returned fields (titles de/fr/it, status, dates, identifier). This narrows the tool to a metadata-profile lookup and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_document or get_modifications that imply broader reads.

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 a clear intended use: 'use to confirm a search hit before you cite.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent selecting among the many fedlex siblings.

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