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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that—the output shape ('search URL plus code hints')—which matters because there is no output schema. However it says nothing about result count caps or the Justel source's coverage beyond the title, so it is solid but not rich.

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 tightly packed sentences: what it does and when to reach for it. The return-value preview is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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 correctly compensates by naming the return artifacts (search URL and code hints), and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter, low-complexity search tool this is nearly complete, though it could note result limits or language expectations for the keyword.

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 100%: the schema already documents 'keyword' (Dutch/French, length bounds) and 'limit' (default 5, max 10). The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (keyword-search) and resource (Belgian legislation on Justel) and even previews the return value (search URL + code hints). It differentiates by scenario ('don't know the exact reference') but never names the sibling it is contrasted with, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

'Use when you don't know the exact reference' gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly excludes the case where the exact reference is known (i.e., use legal_lookup/legal_read instead). It does not name those alternatives explicitly, so it falls 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.