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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: this tool exists for client compatibility with the standard search/fetch pair, framing it as a fallback rather than a preferred path.

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, no filler, and the fallback positioning plus the preferred alternative are front-loaded. It does restate the return shape that the output schema already provides, a minor redundancy.

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, return value detail is not required, and the description still adds the fallback rationale and the search_acts alternative. The only real omission is query input semantics, which is the gap the zero-coverage parameter leaves open.

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 0% for the single required 'query' parameter, so the description must carry that burden. It only calls the search 'generic' and never explains what the query accepts (free text, keywords, citation strings) or how matches are ranked, leaving the agent to guess at input syntax.

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 ('generic corpus search over Indian Central and State legislation') plus the return shape, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_acts. An agent can distinguish it from the other ~20 siblings without opening a 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 explicit routing guidance ('Prefer search_acts if you can call it: it filters by category, state, year and status') and states the follow-up action ('Pair with fetch to read a result'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure a high score requires.

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