List the version history of a law

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that statuses (in force, repealed, superseded, deferred) and validity dates come from LEGI and EUR-Lex, and notes pricing ($0.01 per call, first daily free). However, it doesn't disclose output structure, pagination behavior, rate limits beyond pricing, or whether it combines multiple datasets under one response.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and use-case, followed by corpus coverage and pricing. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place (usage trigger, data source, corpus, pricing, docs link). The corpus enumeration is lengthy but valuable given the code parameter semantics. Slight redundancy between title and description purpose.

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?

Given 2 params (one richly documented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, when to use, data sources, corpus scope, pricing, and the code/eu reference syntax thoroughly. The article parameter ambiguity is the main gap, but the EU reference handling is detailed. Pricing note adds practical value without bloating. Complete for its complexity level.

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 50% (article has no description). The code parameter description is exceptionally rich, adding the corpus coverage list, alternate EU reference syntax (celex=, eli=), and acceptable URL flexibility. However, the article parameter lacks any description beyond its name, so meaning must be inferred. The description compensates reasonably but leaves article underspecified.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('detect exactly when it changed' / 'List the version history') and the resource (French/EU legal article version timeline), distinguishing it from siblings like legal_diff (comparing versions) and legal_article (reading a single version). The scope (12 French codes + EU acts) is specific and well-boundaried.

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 opening 'Before your agent relies on a stored legal citation or watches a provision for change' gives explicit when-to-use context, implying use before relying on citations or monitoring for changes. It distinguishes against legal_article/legal_diff siblings by framing this as the timeline/detection tool. Clear stated use case.

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