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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly false, destructive false): it discloses idempotency ('same place of same act already there → added false'), asynchronous act fetching ('hasText may be false at first'), and required permissions. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a success.

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 opening verb+resource is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run of parenthetical clauses and abrupt fragments ('it is yours, accepted at once') that hurt scannability. Several sentences could be tightened without losing information.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers targets (issue/page/comment), permissions, background-processing side effects, and the idempotent result signal. Nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description still adds meaning: url must point to an official source site, place is stated in words ('Article 18'), and commentId anchors the reference inside a comment rather than the issue/page body. This enriches rather than repeats the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Put a reference to a legal act on an issue or a wiki page') and scopes the target objects, which clearly separates it from siblings like add_attachment or add_comment. The analogy to the UI 'Add' in the 'Legal acts' block makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

Explains the conditions for use: it requires a project that keeps legal references and permission to edit the issue/page (or comment). It clarifies the commentId alternative, but never names sibling tools such as list_legal_references or remove_legal_reference to route the agent explicitly.

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