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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the result shape ('id, title and url for each hit') and the intended handoff to fetch, which is genuine context beyond 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?

Two sentences, no filler. Corpus scope is front-loaded and the return/handoff detail follows, so an agent gets the important information first.

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 the returned fields and the next-step tool, which is exactly what is needed. It stops short of covering result limits, pagination, or ranking behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior, or result limits, making it the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Search everything on regulations.ai') and enumerates the corpus types covered (laws from 160+ jurisdictions, glossary, enforcement, papers, news). The word 'everything' implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower sibling search_regulations, but that sibling is never named, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 a clear follow-on path ('pass an id to `fetch` for the summary'), which is useful routing. However it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over the near-identical sibling search_regulations, which is the highest-risk selection decision here.

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