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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the non-binding nature of advisory opinions and the return shape ('opinion number, date, and excerpt with source_url'). No contradiction with the annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It leads with the core purpose, then quickly gives the usage signal, a citation caveat, and the return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 helpfully states what the tool returns ('opinion number, date, and excerpt with source_url'). It also covers the key usage context and the legal status of the results. Minor omissions like pagination or result ordering are acceptable for a simple search 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?

The schema provides a Persian query example and default/min/max for limit, but the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter, though limit's semantics are largely inferable from its name and bounds.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('advisory opinions ... of the Judiciary's legal department'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_case_law, search_circular, and search_law_articles by emphasizing 'official, citable interpretation of Iranian statutes.'

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 says 'Use when the user asks how a provision is officially interpreted, or to support an argument.' It also warns that advisory opinions are 'authoritative guidance, not binding law' and instructs the agent to say so when citing. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops 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.