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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful context about selecting a Fassung for a past or future date, but it does not explain the return shape or behavior when no consolidation exists.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, but it is awkwardly phrased and ends with an incomplete 'norm.' artifact. It is concise but not cleanly structured.

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 two-parameter, read-only resolver, the description is usable and gives the intended workflow. However, with no output schema and no explanation of `eli` or edge cases like invalid dates, an agent may still need additional context to call it confidently.

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 only 50%, with `as_of` described but `eli` left undocumented. The description mentions ISO date but does not explain the required `eli` parameter, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 names a specific operation ('Resolve which consolidation (Fassung) of an act') and identifies the key input condition (ISO date). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic read tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as fedlex.list_versions or read_document, and the trailing 'norm.' is an artifact.

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 says when to use it: 'use before reading text for a past or future Stichtag.' This gives an agent a clear invocation context, though it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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