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

Without annotations, the description provides the critical behavior of a limited output size (20 hits). This is useful, but it does not elaborate on expected error conditions, throttling, or authentication requirements beyond naming the token parameter.

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 extremely concise, capturing the tool's identity (PRO), action (search), and defining constraint (20 hits) in a single, efficient statement.

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 search tool lacking annotations, it is incomplete. It provides no guidance on authentication necessity or the expected format of the results, forcing the agent to rely solely on schema interpretation.

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?

Given the low schema description coverage (33%), the description fails to provide meaningful context for parameters like 'access_token' or how the 'limit' parameter interacts with the stated 'PRO' cap. It relies too heavily on the implicit understanding of the keyword.

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?

It clearly defines the resource (law search hits) and provides a scope constraint (max 20 hits). This specific limit helps distinguish it from the generic 'law_search' sibling, even without explicit comparison.

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 implies a restriction on volume but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'law_search'. It only communicates a ceiling, not a rule.

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