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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), and the description adds substantial non-annotation context: results are unranked-for-relevance candidates, corpus is non-exhaustive, materials are agency documents not court reasoning. It stops short of describing ranking mechanics or pagination, but the verification workflow it specifies is unusually strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and filters, then the caveats. The warning block is long but each item (verify, quote verbatim, mis-citation risks, corpus gaps) carries distinct operational weight. Slightly dense in the legal-disclaimer run-on, but no dead sentences.

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 no output schema, the description names the returned fields (citation, serial_no, lifecycle status, similarity score, excerpt) and the required follow-up path for full text, so an agent knows both what comes back and what to do next. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 75%, so filters are already partly documented; the description reinforces authority as an exact agency name with concrete examples (財政部/勞動部) and enumerates source_kind values in prose. It adds meaning beyond the schema for the two filters but says nothing about max_results or query phrasing beyond what the schema shows.

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+resource ('SEMANTIC search over Taiwan administrative interpretations'), enumerates the corpus types covered, and explicitly distinguishes itself from court judgments and the 裁決 corpus. An agent can tell it apart from search_judgments and search_bundle without opening any 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: use search_judgments for judgments, use search_bundle/search_judgments for 勞裁字 labour decisions, and mandates a follow-up get_legal_reference call before citing. It also states when-not-to-infer (empty result does not mean the interpretation doesn't exist).

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