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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine operational budget (~30KB, limit <= 20) that is not derivable from the annotations, though it does not describe pagination or result-shape behavior.

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 with the WHEN condition and the sibling-routing rule front-loaded; the budget constraint is stated compactly and nothing is redundant.

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, a fully described parameter set, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to supply routing and budget context — both of which it does.

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 all 10 parameters including the year/year_from/year_to precedence rule and the region filter semantics are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond echoing the limit ceiling, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('search Indonesian legal text') and adds the qualifying condition ('WHEN the relevant law is unknown'), which separates it cleanly from resolve_law/get_law_context/read_law in the sibling list.

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 explicit when-to-use ('law is unknown') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('If a law is known, prefer resolve_law then get_law_context/read_law'). The routing decision is fully specified with no inference required.

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