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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the return is French and Arabic side by side, qualified by 'when available', which tells the agent output may be partial. It does not cover behavior when the article number does not exist.

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 key constraints (one article, keyed by text_id and number, bilingual output) are front-loaded in a single sentence. The full French restatement doubles the length, which is defensible for a bilingual legal-domain tool but adds no information an English-reading agent did not already have.

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 simple two-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should carry the return shape, and it only says French/Arabic side by side 'when available' without describing the response structure or the not-found case. Adequate but with visible gaps for an agent deciding what to expect back.

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 67%; text_id and article_no are documented in the schema with examples, and the description restates them without adding format detail. The lang parameter has no schema description, and the description only indirectly implies its effect ('French and Arabic side by side') without explaining the fr/ar/both options or the default.

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: retrieve a single article of a Tunisian law/code, keyed by text_id and article number. That is clearly narrower than get_text (whole text) and search_law (discovery), though the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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: the required text_id and article_no make it obvious this is a follow-up lookup once a text is known, and the schema's 'from search_law' note hints at the workflow, but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description. No explicit when-not or pointer to get_text for full-text retrieval.

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