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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the quota cost (1 call per invocation) and the guidance for partial results: full_text=None on long acts means choosing a section from section_index and calling again with unit_label. The remaining return-value notes (found=False, citation.unit_scope, law_freshness_note) are useful, but an output schema exists and likely repeats much of this field-level detail.

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 structure is strong and front-loaded: purpose first, then sibling routing, then result-reading bullets. The 'อ่านผล' block is comparatively long, but each bullet conveys a distinct recovery or interpretation step rather than padding.

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 read-only three-parameter fetch tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, alternatives, quota, and the failure/recovery path. What an agent needs in order to call it correctly and act on a partial result is present.

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 the schema already documents the 'มาตรา' prefix requirement, the whole-act default, and that timeline_code comes from get_law_versions. The description's mention of the three parameters adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource (fetch the full legal text by law_code), plus its two scoping options (whole act vs. a specific section, and selecting an amendment version). It is immediately distinguishable from search_law, get_gazette_document, get_deka, and verify_citation, which are all named.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite (use after search_law yields a law_code) and routes to each alternative by condition: gazette documents go to get_gazette_document, supreme-court rulings to get_deka, and mere existence-checking of a cited section to verify_citation, which it notes returns a clearer status.

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