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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the return format (`{id, title, url}`) and its role in the standard search/fetch pair, which is useful but does not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sentence about being present for client compatibility is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. Overall, it is concise and easy to parse.

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?

The description mentions the return format and how to use the result with `fetch`, which covers the main workflow. However, it lacks details on query syntax, result pagination, or potential errors, making it slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained tool description.

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?

The only parameter, `query`, is a string with no schema description. The tool description does not elaborate on what constitutes a valid query, search syntax, or any constraints. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate, the semantic meaning of `query` remains largely unspecified.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a generic corpus search over Indian Central and State legislation, returning records for citation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the more specialized search_acts tool, which filters by category, state, year, and status.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: prefer search_acts when available, and pair this search with fetch to read results. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool relative to alternatives.

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