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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses cost (FREE) and a hard result cap (top 3), both material for planning. It omits matching behavior (substring vs. full-text) and any error or rate-limit 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?

One short sentence with the most decision-relevant fact (FREE) front-loaded and the result cap last. The phrase 'as supported' is soft filler, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, result volume, and input language, which is most of what an agent needs. Return shape and matching semantics are the remaining gaps, and both are modest at this complexity.

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 single keyword parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add language semantics (Japanese or romanji), but the hedge 'as supported' is vague and it says nothing about whether keyword matching is exact, substring, or multi-term.

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+scope: search Japanese laws by keyword, capped at top 3. It hints at a tier distinction (FREE, top 3) that implicitly separates it from law_search_pro, but never names the sibling tools.

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 FREE label and 'top 3' cap implicitly signal this is the lightweight/low-cost option versus law_search_pro, but the description never states when to choose this over law_detail or law_search_pro. Usage must be inferred.

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