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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral scope beyond that: it returns only amended elements and functions as a gap catalogue. This clarifies an important non-obvious filter behavior that the schema and annotations do not express.

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-loads the core action and scope. However, the trailing 'norm.' is an unexplained stray fragment that does not earn its place and slightly undermines clarity.

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 single-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect: a list of amended subdivisions showing which articles carry amendments. It also names the relevant alternative, so the decision context is complete.

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%: the single 'eli' parameter is already described as a 'Fedlex ELI of the consolidation abstract.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'List the subdivisions JOLux knows for an act.' It further clarifies scope with 'amended elements only, a gap catalogue' and explicitly differentiates itself from get_structure by naming it as the outline alternative. This distinguishes the tool clearly from its siblings.

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: 'use to see which Artikel carry amendments.' It also names the alternative get_structure for outlines, which tells the agent when not to choose this tool. This is direct, actionable guidance.

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