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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (slug, article count, dadrasai.com page), which no output schema provides; pagination and multi-match behavior are still unstated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and matching rule, with the return fields trailing. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and the returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing behavior on zero matches or multiple matches.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does explain that matching is on a *partial* name rather than an exact identifier. It does not mention the minLength 2 / maxLength 120 constraints, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Find'), resource ('Iranian laws'), matching mechanism ('by (part of) their name') and the resulting fields (slug, article count, page). It never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling search_iranian_law, so an agent must guess which name-lookup path to use.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is a lookup keyed on (partial) law names. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to search_iranian_law as the alternative for full-text or topical queries.

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