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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description. The description adds that the response carries the full official text, but says nothing about payload size, missing/invalid-id behavior, or latency that would matter for a single-node fetch.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the input needed. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, this is complete: the description covers what comes back, how to obtain the id, and the annotations cover safety.

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% and the single parameter's schema text ('Node UUID, as returned in law.search results') is duplicated nearly verbatim in the description. With the schema doing the heavy lifting and only one parameter, 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 (Returns), a precise resource (one legal provision), and the payload contents (full official text, citation, hierarchy), which cleanly separates it from law.search's list-result behavior. The clause 'by its node id (the UUID in search results)' implicitly anchors the agent to the search-then-fetch workflow with a sibling tool.

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?

The mention of 'the UUID in search results' implies this tool is invoked after law.search, which is useful sequencing context. However, it never states when-not to use it, nor does it differentiate from the other law.* siblings such as law.list_coverage, leaving usage only implied.

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