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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that advisory opinions are 'authoritative guidance, not binding law' and instructs the assistant to 'say so when citing.' It also specifies returned fields (opinion number, date, excerpt, source_url), giving full behavioral transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it is, when to use it, and a critical caveat plus return format. The description is front-loaded with purpose and contains no wasted words.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, return fields, and an important caveat about non-binding status. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema describes the query parameter with examples, but the limit parameter has no description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information (e.g., that query is in Persian or that limit is capped at 5). With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 precisely identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('advisory opinions of the Judiciary's legal department'), and the nature of the content ('official, citable interpretation of Iranian statutes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as search_case_law and search_circular.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks how a provision is officially interpreted, or to support an argument.' It does not offer when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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