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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is semantic + keyword search, returns exact article number, law title, excerpt, and source_url, and warns about amended articles. This extends the agent's understanding of expected behavior without contradicting 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 reasonably compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core function and followed by usage direction and return details. The all-caps directive is emphatic but purposeful. No sentence is filler, though the description could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the key returned fields: article number, law title, excerpt, and source_url. It also provides the core use context and citation expectations. It does not mention how to choose between alternatives or edge cases like amended-article handling, but for a read-only search tool with annotations already covering safety, this is largely complete.

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 67%, so the schema already documents query and law_filter. The description adds that search is semantic + keyword and that it covers full text, which helps interpret the query parameter. However, it does not elaborate on limit behavior or law_filter semantics beyond the schema, and the description does not compensate heavily for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic + keyword search across the full text of Iranian statutes.' It also enumerates covered laws and 60,000+ articles, making the resource concrete. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like lookup_law_article, but 'search' vs the family of 'lookup' tools provides implicit differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QUESTION ABOUT IRANIAN LAW — do not rely on memory.' It also explains why, citing misremembered article numbers and amended-article traps. However, it does not state when a user should prefer a sibling tool such as lookup_law_article or search_case_law, so exclusions/alternatives are missing.

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