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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the returned bundle contains allowed_citations and strict citation rules, unread candidates must not be cited as authority, arbitration decisions are administrative rather than court judgments, and duplicate bundles can degrade answer quality. This is rich context for a read-only, idempotent search tool.

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 front-loaded with the recommended use case and remains information-dense throughout. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds relevant legal or behavioral context.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the returned bundle, citation rules, result_token, and arbitration caveat. The main completeness gap is the lack of input parameter semantics for read_top, max_results, and search_type.

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%, so the description must explain the four input parameters. It only implies the query parameter and does not explain read_top, max_results, or search_type, leaving key controls undocumented.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: it runs a search, retrieves reasoning excerpts, and returns a citation bundle. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_judgments and explains its role in answering Taiwan legal questions.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use this instead of search_judgments when answering a legal question, reuse an existing bundle for the same question, and use get_judgment_fulltext for unread candidates or truncated excerpts. It also explains special handling for labour questions involving arbitration decisions.

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