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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data source (Taiwan Ministry of Justice), approximate result shape (pcode, titles, law level, category, English-translation flag, amendment date), and the key behavioral limitation that makes it fail on in-article phrases.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the primary action and scope come first, then the limitation, then the return fields and source. Slightly long, and the return-field enumeration could be trimmed, but every sentence carries real information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and the source, and it discloses the title-only limitation that an agent must know to avoid misfiring. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters already carry descriptions; the description's query examples largely duplicate the schema's e.g. values and add no syntax or disambiguation for 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (search Taiwan national statutes/Constitution) plus a scope qualifier (by TITLE keyword), and explicitly contrasts itself against full-text search. The mention of pcode being suitable for tw_law_info/tw_law_article further separates it from its closest siblings.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (title keyword, Chinese or English, with concrete examples) and when-not-to-use ('this is a title search, not full-text; it will not find a law by a phrase appearing only inside an article'). It also routes the agent forward by naming the sibling tools that consume the returned pcode.

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