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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, it adds real operational behavior the annotations cannot: personal-status topics are refused and every answer is grounded in a law name, article number, and page URL.

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?

Six short sentences, each earning its place, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the constraints following in priority order. No filler or repetition beyond the minor duplication of the read-only annotation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (law name, article number, page URL). Combined with the input constraints and refusal rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully constrains the 'query' parameter by specifying it must be a topic rather than client names, contact details, or case files. That adds content semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Words to find in the published pages.'

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 (search) and resource (pages already published on a named site), which naturally separates it from get_article and list_official_sources. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish the tools.

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?

Gives concrete input guidance ('send a topic, not client names, contact details, or case files') and an explicit exclusion ('personal-status topics are refused'). It stops short of naming sibling tools or describing when to prefer them, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals are clear.

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