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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default retrieval mode, the preservation of require_semantic when supplied, and an explicit scope disclaimer that it does not provide legal advice or determine case outcomes. It still says little about the shape or volume of what comes back.

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?

The text is dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then mode defaults, then the administrative alternative, then the scope disclaimer. Every sentence carries information, though the mode/flag sentence is syntactically crowded and could be split for faster scanning.

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 7-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers routing and mode semantics but omits the meaning of countries, source_groups, max_citations and response_language, and gives no sense of the citation/provenance structure returned. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently tune it.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains allowed_modes in useful depth (default behavior plus the 'judicial_text' value) and mentions require_semantic, but question, countries, max_citations, source_groups, and response_language receive no explanation at all, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented in both places.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve and organize verifiable judicial passages with sources and version provenance'), which is far more informative than the tool name. It distinguishes the tool from the administrative siblings (DGT/TEA) but never explains how it differs from close siblings like search_evidence or search_decisions, leaving an agent to guess between them.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: it states that omitting allowed_modes defaults to hybrid thematic search, that allowed_modes=['judicial_text'] forces textual retrieval, and that administrative doctrine belongs to the administrative tools. It lacks an explicit exclusion against the nearest judicial siblings (search_evidence, search_decisions), so the routing picture is incomplete.

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