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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: deterministic whole-word topic matching with no LLM, and a ranking rule ('Results that apply on as_of come first'). It does not mention pagination behavior or the shape of returned items beyond implying they are partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its matching behavior, followed by ordering and then routing to alternatives. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given six parameters and an enum, the description is nearly complete; the residual gap is that type, limit, and cursor are left entirely to an unevenly described schema, and 'source'/'relationship' result kinds are unnamed.

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 50%, with q, type, and limit undescribed. The description adds meaning to as_of (results applicable on that date sort first) and partially maps the type enum by naming propositions, authorities, and cases, but omits 'source' and 'relationship' and says nothing about limit or cursor semantics.

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 and resource ('Searches propositions, authorities, and cases by words and topics') and immediately qualifies the matching semantics as deterministic whole-word, no language model. It also distinguishes itself from 'get_evidence' and 'build_evidence_packet' by naming them, so an agent can differentiate without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to search, then 'get_evidence for the full object' or 'build_evidence_packet for a complete answer set' — clarifying that this tool returns lightweight results. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statement, but the alternative-condition mapping is clear.

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