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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context by restricting results to 'spēkā esošu' (valid) laws and supporting partial title matches. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but the annotations already cover safety.

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 (Latvian with English translation), directly front-loaded with the core action and examples. No unnecessary detail or repetition of schema contents.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it specifies the input type and the scope of results. It does not explain return format or failure handling, but given the tool's simplicity and read-only annotation, this is a minor gap.

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% (the query parameter is described as 'Law title or part thereof'). The description enriches this with two concrete examples and clarifies that partial matching is supported ('vai tā daļas'), adding practical usage context beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Atrod spēkā esošu likumu vai MK noteikumus pēc nosaukuma' (finds valid laws or Cabinet regulations by title), with concrete examples. It distinguishes from siblings like search_law_articles by explicitly targeting laws by title, not articles.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a full or partial law title), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool names suggest related tools (e.g., get_law, search_law_articles), but the description itself provides no exclusionary guidance.

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