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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: what 'enabled: false' means (empty list, project keeps no references), the meaning of 'state' values, the 'editionChangedAt' change-detection semantics, and the exact permission needed. This is rich disclosure that annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then explains return fields, which is warranted since there is no output schema. The dense parenthetical run-ons about 'editionChangedAt' and 'editionReaches' are slightly hard to parse, but nearly every sentence carries needed 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?

With no output schema, the description fully shoulders the burden of explaining the returned structure (id, location, document metadata, place, quote, foundBy, state, change tracking) and the enabling condition. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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%, so 'page' and 'issue' are already documented as the two alternatives. The description reinforces the either/or scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource and goes further to define what a legal reference is: the acts an issue or wiki page refers to in its text and comments. An agent can distinguish this from search_legal_library, find_by_legal_document, or get_legal_document by the per-issue/per-page scoping.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to a single issue or wiki page and notes the permission requirement, and points to remove_legal_reference for the returned id. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use this versus search_legal_library or find_by_legal_document, so the alternative-routing is implied rather than stated.

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