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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world), so the description's added value is the indexed corpus and the result format. Disclosing that it searches library editorial text and BNS/BNSS headings (not just statutes) is meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't mention ranking/pagination behavior, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the search surface, the second defines when to reach for it. Scope is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description still communicates the return format (sections, one-line summary, link) and the search surface. Combined with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating what the 'query' string actually matches against (titles, keywords, section text, explanations, enacted headings), which constrains how an agent should phrase queries. The act and limit params are left entirely to the schema.

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 (keyword search) and resource scope: titles, keywords, section text, plain-English explanations, plus BNS/BNSS section headings. It also describes the return shape (closest-matching sections with a one-line summary and a link), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus a section-lookup 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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user describes a topic but does not know the Act or section number', which cleanly separates it from the sibling lookup_bare_act_section. It does not name that sibling or state the inverse condition (known section number ⇒ use the other tool), so it stops just short of a 5.

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