Table of contents of a code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the response (counts, slugs) and the intended iterative browse strategy, though it says nothing about size limits or pagination of large outlines.

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 sentences, zero filler. The resource/return summary comes first and the traversal advice second, so the agent gets purpose then action in reading order.

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 usefully names the returned artifacts (article counts, section_slug/article_slug), which is what an agent needs to chain into a follow-up call. It is slightly thin on the depth/result-size tradeoff, but otherwise complete for a read-only outline tool.

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%, so depth, code_slug and section_slug are already documented, including the depth default and the pointer to leginova_list_codes. The description only reinforces depth 2 and the section_slug drill-down, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource (a code's table of contents) and enumerates the hierarchy it covers (parts, books, titles, chapters, sections), plus what it returns (article counts, section_slug/article_slug). This clearly separates it from siblings like leginova_get_code_article and leginova_read_code_section.

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?

Gives explicit operating guidance: start broad with depth 2, then drill in via section_slug. That's a usable when/how, but it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. read_code_section) or states when to prefer reading a section directly over navigating the outline.

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