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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return semantics: the current version, plus the historical counterpart when an amendment is pending. It doesn't cover rate limits or failure modes on unknown article numbers, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: purpose, routing guidance, and return behavior, in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information and the critical routing hint is front-loaded.

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 proactively explains what comes back (current version, plus historical counterpart for pending amendments), which is the main unknown for this tool. Nothing essential is missing, though edge behavior for unknown laws or missing articles is 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 description coverage is 100%, so law_name, article_number, and lang are fully documented in the schema (including the ~21% English-translation caveat and the 條 exclusion). The description only restates 'law name + article number' without adding syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the exact text of one Taiwan law article') scoped by law name plus article number, which is a precise retrieval operation. It is clearly distinguishable from search_law and get_law_details by the 'one article' scope.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this instead of search_law when you already know which article you want.' The condition that selects this tool over the sibling is stated outright, and the schema further points to search_law_titles for resolving partial names.

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