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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: ranking uses a deterministic lexical embedder, text similarity is not norm applicability, and results are non-authoritative (establish neither fact nor norm). It does not cover return format or pagination, but the output schema carries that.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then the discovery-vs-answer framing, then the routing caveat. Every sentence contributes (the empty-result warning and embedder note are non-trivial), though the phrasing is somewhat verbose.

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 search tool with a full output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, routing, and behavioral caveats thoroughly. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including enums for kinds and the limit hint. The description adds no syntax or format details for query, kinds, limit, or package beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (semantic search over formalized law) and precisely defines the scope: returns candidate predicates, rules, and article fragments rather than answers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming law_ask, law_rules, and law_sources, so an agent can route correctly without opening 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?

Explicit when-to-use (discovery layer for exploring a notion in your own words) and when-not (if you know the exact name, go directly to law_packages/law_ask). It also names the follow-up alternatives (law_ask by signature, law_rules, law_sources) and warns that an empty result does not imply the norm is absent.

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