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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses real behavior: unreadable items are counted in 'hidden' but never named, only accepted references in projects that keep them count, and a comment's reference is attributed to its issue. These are non-obvious filtering and permission semantics that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is pure filler, but the body is compressed to the point of obscurity (e.g. "'total' issue-and-place and page-and-place lines", "the value names"), forcing the reader to re-parse dense parentheticals. Compression here costs comprehension rather than buying efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well, defining 'total', 'hidden', and the 'items' variants with their fields for issues and pages. Pagination and limits are left to the schema; only result ordering and precedence among identifier forms are unaddressed.

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 every parameter already carries a description, including the accepted identifier forms for 'document'. The description restates those identifier forms with the same example ('32015L0849') without adding syntax, matching rules, or precedence, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: it returns which issues and wiki pages refer to a legal act, framing the result as 'the list on the act's card'. That is concrete and separable from the sibling tools that fetch or mutate an act, but it never names a sibling (e.g. get_legal_document, list_legal_references, add_legal_reference), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent gathers that this is the reference-lookup path for an act and that the JQL equivalent is legalRef = "…", which hints when to route to JQL instead. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the many legal_* siblings.

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