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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result-to-detail-page text format (plain HTML vs PDF) and the authoritative source (Ministry of Justice database), which materially affects how the agent should chain calls.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the sibling comparison and source following. Every clause carries information; the nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter read search with no output schema, the description supplies what's missing: what kind of content lives downstream (full regulation text in HTML) and where it comes from. It does not describe result shape or ordering, though the downstream text tool in the sibling list mitigates that.

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% and the schema already documents both query (Chinese title keyword, with examples) and limit (1-30, default 10). The description only reiterates that matching is by title, adding little beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search mainland Chinese administrative regulations by title) and immediately distinguishes itself from cn_search_laws as the 'second official copy' of the same corpus. An agent can tell exactly which tool to reach for without opening the schema.

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 a clear selection rationale: use this one because its detail pages carry the full text inline as HTML, whereas cn_search_laws/cn_law_article_text route through a PDF. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, but the routing logic is recoverable from the text.

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