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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing what the response contains: the explanation, references to legal acts, and the citable page URL. It does not mention behavior for an unknown slug or how max_chars affects the returned text, which keeps it below 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler: the resource and output contents come first, the usage instruction second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 single-record read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete and even substitutes for the absent output schema by naming what is returned. A note on slug-not-found or truncation behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 slug, locale, and max_chars are already fully documented, including defaults and bounds. The description repeats the slug provenance but adds no meaning beyond the schema for locale or max_chars, 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: retrieves the full text of exactly one article identified by slug, scoped to Uzbek law. It also names the source of the slug (search_articles), which distinguishes it from the search sibling without opening either 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?

"Use it to answer the user from the source instead of from memory" gives a clear positive usage condition and a rationale, and the slug provenance links it to the search step as a preceding call. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a different tool for summaries), so it falls short of a 5.

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