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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: keyless operation, exact-abbreviation shortcut, and returned fields (abbreviation and official title). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but those are minor for this search tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then matching behavior, return values, and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns, how matching works, and that it is keyless, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the query parameter with examples like 'BGB' and 'Datenschutz' and explains the exact-match shortcut, but adds little parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Search), resource (German federal statutes and ordinances), and scope (by title or abbreviation). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like gesetze_law_info, gesetze_provision, and gesetze_structure, which deal with law details rather than search.

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?

Provides explicit use cases such as 'what is the abbreviation for the German Civil Code' and 'find the German data protection act'. It explains matching behavior (exact abbreviation returns one law directly; otherwise ranks by word overlap) but does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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