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

The description discloses that it is a semantic search (not exact match), returns matching passages with citations, and covers 250 PDFs. Since no annotations are provided, this behavioral context is valuable. It doesn't mention any side effects, but search is inherently read-only.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: main function, usage examples, and distinction from sibling. No redundant phrasing.

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?

The description covers what, when, and output expectations. It is complete for a search tool with no output schema, mentioning citations and context.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what schema already says. It mentions 'topic or phrase' but that's redundant with query parameter description. So it adds little semantic value, but baseline is 3 given moderate coverage.

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 it performs semantic search over full text of CJP public-discipline decisions, with specific examples of topic queries. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling search_cjp by noting the difference in search target.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for topic questions or passages, and explicitly says it's distinct from search_cjp which searches summary-record JSON, thereby excluding when not to use.

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