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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond filtering (no pagination, ranking, or result-shape notes), though the output schema partly relieves that burden. A 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the filter list and example queries. Efficient, though the filter enumeration partly duplicates the schema's own parameter list.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, 100% schema coverage and zero required parameters, the description supplies exactly what is needed: scope, filters, and example use cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 nine parameters with examples. The description enumerates the filter dimensions (reviewed_law, lane, amar, year, jenis_pengujian, has_dissent, judge, query) but adds no syntax or matching details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Cari/search) and resource (putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi) plus the case lanes it covers (PUU, SKLN, PHPU, PHPKADA). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_legal and get_law_context without needing to open either schema.

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 concrete example questions ('UU mana yang dibatalkan MK tahun 2024', 'putusan dengan dissenting opinion') and lists the filterable dimensions, which tells the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it versus search_legal.

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