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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: Welsh-language duplicates are filtered out, the excerpt is usually empty upstream, and the publication record only carries a project link rather than a summary. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds important behavioral notes. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes context (Welsh filtering, empty excerpt, pointer to sibling). No waste.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description explains the return fields (title, link, date), the empty excerpt, the Welsh deduplication, and how to get more detail via get_law_commission_publication. It also gives examples of queries. This is complete for an agent to call 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 (limit and query) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it reiterates that query is free-text over titles/content and that omitting it returns recent publications, which the schema already implies. This is baseline 3 given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource (Law Commission publications) and enumerates the document types (consultation papers, reports, summaries, terms-of-reference). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_law_commission_publication and list_law_commission_projects by noting the return fields and the need to call the sibling for project details.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when searching publications) and provides usage guidance like omitting query for recent publications. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list and the explicit pointer to get_law_commission_publication for deeper data.

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