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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real operational context: quota cost of 1 per call including each page turn, 50 documents per page, the fact a single book/section can hold thousands of documents, the meaning of truncated=true, the available_categories fallback, and the deliberate PII masking of national IDs. None of that is recoverable from annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each subsequent line carries a distinct fact (alternatives, quota, page size, truncation, category fallback, PII). It is dense and slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, cost model, pagination mechanics, how to recover when the category is wrong, and the expected availability of an output schema for return shape. Nothing material is missing for a paged, quota-metered read tool.

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 a 3 baseline is warranted, but the description goes further: it explains the offset/paging strategy, the category narrowing workflow, and the non-obvious mapping where 'พิเศษ' belongs in category while section takes only the number. That adds genuine meaning beyond the schema text.

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+resource ('ดึงเอกสารเต็มจากราชกิจจานุเบกษา') and scopes it to corpus='gazette', then explicitly contrasts with get_law_document and get_deka for other document types. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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 trigger ('ใช้หลัง search_law เจอเอกสารราชกิจจาฯ แล้ว') and names the two alternatives with the condition that selects each (ตัวบทกฎหมาย → get_law_document, คำพิพากษา → get_deka). It also advises narrowing with category/no before paging, which is a concrete usage rule.

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