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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the Spanish-only full-text constraint and the response contents (excerpts, official source URL, archived copy of the original), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and language constraint, then the scope. It is somewhat run-on in the country enumeration, but nearly every clause adds usable information.

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, output-schema-less search tool the description adequately covers domain, language, geography and return payload, but omits date-range semantics, the 50-result cap, and the kind filter's meaning. Adequate but with clear gaps against the schema's undocumented surface.

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 only 29% (just q and topic are documented), so the description carries the burden for kind, country, from, to and limit. It never mentions date filters, the limit cap, or the enum values explicitly, only loosely implying country and document-type scoping via the coverage list. That leaves most 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?

States a specific verb ('Full-text search') plus a precise resource set (laws, decrees, regulations, court rulings) and enumerates the covered jurisdictions. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like search_bills or search_news without opening the schema.

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?

Coverage constraints (Spanish-language full text; Costa Rica, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Belize, plus Guatemala Congress decrees) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative such as search_bills. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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