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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety profile, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: ranked full-text search, passages returned with citations, and per-dataset language search with a concrete non-English example. It doesn't discuss result limits or pagination, but with an output schema present the return-shape burden is lower.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and route guidance, and the examples are useful, but the paragraph is dense and runs long. Some sentences are clumsily worded (e.g. 'It does not count as a question') and could be tightened without loss.

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 6-parameter, 50%-coverage tool this is fairly complete: it explains the search model, language behavior, dataset scoping and the document_id workflow, and an output schema covers return values. The main gap is the unexplained industry/jurisdictions/limit parameters.

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 50%. The description adds meaning for query, document_id and the language-to-use-per-dataset rule, but says nothing about industry, jurisdictions, or the limit cap (default 8, max 20). It compensates only partially for the uncovered half.

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 (searches) and resource (wording of regulations, guidelines, register entries) with concrete scope and named datasets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it differs from a 'written answer' (regaffairs_ask_question) and from 'an industry tool'.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use (need the actual text, or an area no industry tool covers like REACH/CLP/EPA/E-PRTR) and when-not ('Not intended for questions an industry tool fits; those tools return structured results'). It also explains the document_id follow-up read pattern. Nothing is left to inference.

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