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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns excerpts with source_url, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not contradict 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the authoritative source context, and ends with the return behavior. Every phrase contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward search tool with two simple parameters, the description covers the purpose, the domain of interest, and the return format. The annotations cover the operational safety profile, and the schema covers parameter constraints, so nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema describes the query parameter as 'Topic, in Persian,' and the limit parameter has default/min/max constraints, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the available schema information is adequate for this simple two-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clearly identified resource: official circulars and directives from judiciary and government bodies. It also highlights that these are the source of current official RATES and procedures, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_case_law or search_law_articles.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by identifying it as the source of current official rates and procedures. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with calculator/lookup siblings is reasonably clear.

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