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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the search mechanism ('semantic + keyword'), the corpus scope, the risk of misremembered/amended articles, and the exact returned fields. It stops short of describing edge behaviors like result ranking or failure modes, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool does, why it must be used, what it returns, and how to cite it. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is unusually complete: it explains corpus, search type, return payload, and citation behavior, plus language guidance. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 already describes query and law_filter, and the description adds practical guidance: Persian gives better recall, law_filter restricts to one law, and queries should be phrased as a legal question or topic. With 67% schema coverage and meaningful added semantics, this is above baseline.

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') and resource ('full text of Iranian statutes, 48,000+ articles'), and clarifies scope by listing major laws. It clearly distinguishes itself from court-case or advisory-opinion searches, making it easy for an agent to select it for statute lookup.

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 gives explicit, emphatic guidance: 'USE THIS BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QUESTION ABOUT IRANIAN LAW' and warns against relying on memory due to misremembered article numbers and amended articles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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