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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that results are human-verified and include article citations, and that current coverage is Labour Law topics. This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences (Latvian/English) with no fluff, though bilingual repetition is slightly redundant. It front-loads the action and scope.

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?

The tool is simple, with good annotations and schema. Description explains the search scope, the nature of answers (verified with citations), and the return format. No output schema is needed given the clear description.

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 already fully documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions in Latvian. Description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states it searches a human-verified Q&A layer with specific scope (Labour Law) and returns full answers with citations. This distinguishes it from sibling law-article/law search tools like search_law_articles and search_laws.

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 context: use for verified Latvian labour-law Q&A. It implies this is for common questions with verified answers, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as search_law_articles or search_laws, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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