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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds behavioral substance: results are per element of a consolidation and contain amendment notes with AS references. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only list operation.

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 core description is one dense, front-loaded sentence followed by a concrete query example. The trailing 'norm.' is unexplained noise and slightly weakens the otherwise tight structure.

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 list tool, the description plus schema covers the required consolidation ELI, optional eid scope, language, and the intended question. There is no output schema, but the nature of the return value ('amendment notes') is clear enough. A small gap is that it does not explicitly mention default behavior for lang, though the schema already covers that.

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%, so the schema fully documents eli_version, eid, and lang. The description adds only conceptual context ('consolidation', 'per element') without providing new parameter-level syntax or constraints.

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 object ('List the amendment notes ... per element of a consolidation') and shows exactly what kind of data is returned ('Fassung gemäss …', AS refs). The quoted use case makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from related read/history 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 explicitly states when to use it: 'use for «wann und wodurch wurde Art. X geändert?»'. It gives a clear invocation criterion, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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