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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return value is ids for fetch, and queries may be paragraph references like '1.45-8(d)'. It omits result limits or pagination 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?

Front-loads the core action and the id-to-fetch contract, then lists corpora and the query-syntax example. The regulation enumeration is long but serves selection by telling the agent what is indexed; minimal waste overall.

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 what is searched, what is returned (ids for fetch), and query syntax. The remaining gap is disambiguation from content-specific siblings like read_regulation or pwa_overview.

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 100% for the single query param, but the description goes past the schema by showing how a query can be formed (a regulation paragraph reference such as '1.45-8(d)') and that it is a single query string. That is more than restating the schema.

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 and resource ('Full-text search over this guide's documents') and then enumerates the actual corpora covered, so an agent knows exactly what is searchable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling families by routing calculations to the check_* 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('For calculations use the check_* tools instead') and implies the search-then-fetch workflow via 'Returns ids to pass to fetch'. It does not, however, clarify how it differs from overlapping siblings such as pwa_overview, read_regulation, or records_checklist.

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