Amendments of a law

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape (amended_by/amends with id, title, approval date; articles with section id, label, change count, latest change). It does not mention ordering or whether limit applies to both lists beyond what the schema says.

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?

Front-loads the three questions answered, then the return contents, then the sibling pointer. No filler, though the middle sentence is densely packed with field lists that border on schema recap.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is exactly what an agent needs to consume the result. Combined with the routing hint and full schema coverage, nothing material is missing for calling it correctly.

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% – both ids and limit are documented in the schema, including the IDS source and the digits-only pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 subject (amendments of a law) and enumerates exactly the three relationships it answers: which laws amended this one, which it amends, and which articles were amended. The reference to qv_article_history for a different granularity cleanly separates it from siblings.

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 to qv_article_history(section_id) when a single article's full history is wanted, which is a real alternative. It gives no guidance on when this tool is unnecessary (e.g. if only law metadata is needed, qv_law_info may suffice), so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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