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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: title/tag matches outrank body matches, jurisdiction filtering is free, and tag filters are skipped on free plans rather than causing an error.

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 sentences carry all the essential information: what is searched, how results are ranked, and which filters are free or Pro. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the searchable fields, ranking, and filter behavior. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not specified, but the essential call semantics are clear. The only notable gap is the meaning of the category parameter.

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 documentation covers query, tags, and jurisdiction, while category has no schema description. The description enriches query semantics through ranking behavior and explains the practical effect of tag and jurisdiction filters. Category remains underspecified, but the overall parameter guidance is strong.

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: ranked search across clause titles, tags, categories, and bodies. It also distinguishes the tool by explaining ranking behavior, so an agent can tell it apart from clause_list or clause_get.

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 a search use case, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over clause_list or clause_get. It gives useful context about filters and Pro behavior, but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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