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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add beyond that, and it does: matching requires ALL given words and results are grouped by chapter with the regulation heading first. It omits limits, case handling, and pagination behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the return contract; no filler. Slightly dense in the second clause, but every part carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (lines with chapter, heading first), and it covers the trigger condition and query semantics. Minor gaps around result limits and query syntax keep it from being fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a bare `words` string, the description must carry the parameter burden. It adds the key semantic that the query is a multi-word AND match ("contain all the given words"), but leaves unresolved how multiple words are delimited or whether the string is a phrase.

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 names a specific verb and resource: search UDCPR for lines containing the given words, and it states the return shape (lines + chapter, heading first). It is clearly distinct from a generic `search`, though it never names the sibling it is not (e.g. `clause`, `fetch`) to sharpen differentiation.

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?

"Use this when someone asks where UDCPR deals with a topic" gives a concrete triggering condition with examples (refuge areas, rainwater harvesting), which is strong context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for clause-level or fetch-style lookups.

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