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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it searches only 'in-force' articles and returns 'pants ar fragmentu un saiti' (articles with fragment and link), disclosing the output form. This goes beyond annotations and informs the agent about behavior.

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 two sentences in a bilingual format, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning: scope, examples, and return format. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, scope, examples, and return shape. The only notable gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling search tools, but the core functionality is well-described.

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 coverage is 100% with both query and limit described. The description adds value by providing example search phrases and clarifying the full-text scope, helping the agent understand what kind of queries are appropriate. Since the schema already covers parameter details, the examples provide marginal but useful enrichment.

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 clearly states it is a full-text search tool for all in-force Latvian law articles and MK regulations, with concrete example queries. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_law_article (fetch specific article) and search_laws (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?

The description implies usage: it is for full-text search across articles, with examples of legal terms to search. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like search_laws or search_jautajumi, so the agent receives no direct guidance on when to prefer this over siblings.

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