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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds that it searches current tax law articles via full text and gives keyword guidance, but it does not explain result ordering, pagination behavior, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose before giving query tips and the law_name filter. It is efficient, though one sentence partially repeats information already present in the schema.

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 simple three-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, query style, and filtering option. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the core calling information is present.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds examples and a no-particle keyword nuance, but it largely repeats the schema's query and law_name descriptions rather than adding substantial new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search of current tax law articles. It is clear enough to distinguish from retrieval tools like get_article, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_tax tool.

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 useful query-formulation guidance, such as using noun-oriented keywords without particles and limiting by law_name. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_tax or get_article.

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