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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: 'source-text matches, not legal conclusions' prevents over-interpreting filter results, and 'Coverage reports omissions' tells the agent how incomplete coverage is surfaced. No contradiction with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and corpus, followed by caveats that each earn their place. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: corpus, filter semantics, coverage behavior, and a privacy rule. It stops short of a 5 because it does not describe result shape or `limit` behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that jurisdiction/topic filters are literal source-text matches and that query is a research query, but it does not explain `limit` or the expected string formats for filters.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search verified public MRX titles, headings and article text.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the generic `search` sibling by limiting the corpus to verified public MRX materials.

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?

Provides clear usage context: optional jurisdiction/topic filters are described as source-text matches, and the description explicitly warns not to include personal data in research queries. It does not explicitly name when-not conditions or alternatives among siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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