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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context beyond them: matching is a phrase on cite-title and official/unofficial titles, and results are resolved to the version in force on as_of. It stops short of describing result count or pagination behavior, but the safety and matching profile is well disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, matching/return semantics second, and the exclusionary 'title search only' last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded.

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?

Complete for a three-param, no-output-schema tool: the description explains matching mode, temporal resolution, and what identifiers come back. Minor gaps remain around result-set shape and whether limit truncation is surfaced, but an agent has enough 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: query is matched as a phrase against cite-title and official/unofficial titles, and as_of resolves matches to the in-force version (schema only says 'valid on this ISO date'). This meaningfully clarifies how the parameters behave.

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) and resource (Dutch national legislation by title, BWB Basiswettenbestand) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not search article full text, while naming nl_wetten_get_law and nl_wetten_get_article as the consumers of the returned BWB ids.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as a title-lookup that yields BWB ids for follow-up calls to nl_wetten_get_law/nl_wetten_get_article, and excludes full-text search. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_law, but the phrase-matching scope makes the boundary clear enough.

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