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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses ranking behavior (codes and laws before decrees/orders), credit cost and the no-match refund rule, the data source, and an authority disclaimer. It stops short of describing pagination or how the limit parameter interacts with result count.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and examples, then ranking, return handoff, cost, and provenance. Dense but every clause adds usable information; the closing legal disclaimer is slightly tangential but relevant to trusting the results.

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 explains what comes back (act ids for downstream tools) and how results are ordered. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on limit/pagination and the year/number filters, which an agent with 5 params would benefit from.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It richly documents what 'q' accepts (citations, title words, multiple format examples) and implies the act-type filter via the ranking note, but leaves year, limit, and number entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Finds) and resource (Romanian normative acts on legislatie.just.ro) and gives concrete query examples like 'Legea 31/1990' and 'Codul fiscal'. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_legal_act / get_legal_article as the tools that consume its returned 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 when to use it: by citation or title words, with examples of accepted forms. It also routes the agent to the follow-up tools via the returned act ids. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the selection context is unambiguous.

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