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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds that it scans recent documents, but does not disclose further behavioral details like return format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by a short list of example queries. Every sentence is useful and immediately understandable. No fluff.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description could do more to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of document snippets or full documents). However, the 100% schema coverage and annotations partially compensate. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the JSON schema). The description's example queries hint at parameters (iso, since) but do not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('scans recent legal documents') and the scope ('across jurisdictions'), and provides specific example queries that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_documents (which lists all documents) or evidence_pull (which focuses on specific evidence).

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 concrete example queries telling an agent when to invoke this tool (e.g., 'What laws changed recently in Netherland?'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the examples provide clear usage context.

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