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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds useful context: 'Results are primary-source material, not legal advice' and 'current Polish statutes,' clarifying scope and limitations. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but the annotations cover safety traits.

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 compact and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, when to use, example, filter guidance, and disclaimer. No redundant filler.

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 12 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the common path well but leaves many tuning parameters unexplained. The output schema exists, so return structure is available, but the description alone is not enough to fully understand all 12 parameters.

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 compensate. It explains the query parameter with a Polish example and clarifies when not to use the filter parameters (address, domain, etc.). However, advanced parameters like retrieval_mode, case_law_boost, and candidate_multiplier remain undocumented, leaving gaps.

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 opens with 'Search current Polish statutes and return article-level hits,' which uses a specific verb, resource, and output granularity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article, get_case, and search_case_by_signature, which target specific documents or case searches.

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 explicitly says 'Start here' for natural-language issues or direct citations, and instructs not to add domain, address, article, act_type, or status filters unless the user provided them. This gives strong when/when-not guidance, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly, keeping it from a 5.

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