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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral detail: the result is capped Markdown, may carry a truncated flag, and supports continuation via offset. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the core capability in one sentence. The awkward trailing fragment '. norm.' and the dense parenthetical slightly reduce readability but do not waste much space.

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 tool with a fully documented parameter schema and no output schema, the description still conveys the key output behavior (Markdown, truncation, continuation) and usage boundary. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and each parameter already has precise meaning (language default, continuation via next_offset, character budget, dated eli_version). The description only lightly reinforces max_chars/offset behavior and adds no new parameter-level semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific action ('Read'), a bounded resource ('whole small act or Verordnung'), and an output shape ('capped Markdown'), and explicitly contrasts itself with read_article for quoting. The trailing 'norm.' is confusing but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

Gives an explicit condition—'use for short acts'—and names the alternative path for quoting ('quote via read_article'). This is enough for an agent to route between the two most relevant siblings without opening their schemas.

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