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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: results are 'Sorted by most recently updated' and it describes a 'convenience search' (implying a simplified wrapper). This adds value beyond the annotation, though it could go further by noting the substring matching is case-insensitive or explaining return format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, then usage guidance and an alternative. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with a small parameter set and no output schema, the description delivers all necessary context: what it searches, how matching works, sort order, and when/alternatives to use it. The annotations cover safety. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context for the query parameter by explaining it is a 'substring to match in the Danish title (titel)' and provides examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description, clarifying the matching behavior. The top and skip parameters are already well documented in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'finds cases whose Danish title (titel) contains a substring.' It names the specific resource (Sag/cases/bills) and the matching mechanism. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool query_entity by noting 'for full control use query_entity,' which differentiates it from alternatives.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to look up legislation/matters by keyword.' It also provides an alternative: 'for full control use query_entity.' This gives clear guidance relative to sibling tools, fulfilling the 'when vs. alternatives' requirement.

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