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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results carry source citations and, importantly, that retrieved text is untrusted reference material and never agent instructions — a prompt-injection caveat annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, filters, and the untrusted-content warning. The scoping sentence is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the added citation and untrusted-content notes fill the remaining behavioral gap. It falls slightly short on parameter mechanics (default query behavior, result caps, enum meaning) that a 5-parameter, 0%-documented schema would benefit from.

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 carries the full parameter burden. It names three of the five filter dimensions (language, type, topic) and their purpose, but never explains query (default empty string, 500-char cap), max_results (1-20 cap), or the enum values including the 'und' language code.

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) plus the resource scope (published Legal Fournier articles, YouTube videos, canonical legal resources), which an agent can act on directly. It never names a sibling such as fetch or run_legal_fournier_tool, so the boundary with those tools is left implicit rather than stated.

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 implied by the scope statement and by the security note about treating retrieved text as untrusted reference material, which is genuinely useful operational guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause and no routing to fetch or the domain-specific sibling tools, so the agent must infer the choice.

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