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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the scope (7 databases, 4 jurisdictions) and the 'one query' behavior, but does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, how results are aggregated, or any potential limitations. It is not misleading, but it lacks depth.

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 description is brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The phrase 'The killer feature' is somewhat promotional and adds no technical value, but the text remains concise and readable overall.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear high-level purpose but omits details about the response format, error handling, or any constraints. Given the simplicity of the search tool, it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the exact 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 100%, with each parameter (query, jurisdictions, max_per_source) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the tool performs a cross-jurisdiction legal search ('Search across ALL jurisdictions (US, EU, UK) in a single call') and highlights its unique scope ('7 legal databases, 4 jurisdictions'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like eurlex_search or uk_legislation_search, which are single-jurisdiction.

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 phrase 'Search across ALL jurisdictions' implies the tool should be used when multi-jurisdiction coverage is needed, and the mention of 'single call' indicates it consolidates multiple sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual jurisdiction-specific tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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