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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden – and it does: it discloses the return shape (each item has regulation_id and pdf_download_link), gives UI guidance ('tampilkan sebagai Baca PDF', not a download prompt), and specifies the link opens a local PDF viewer. It also warns the tool cannot be used to infer norm content, a substantive behavioral constraint.

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 front-loaded with purpose and when-not before the useful behavioral detail, with zero filler sentences. It runs slightly long – the pdf_download_link display instruction could arguably live elsewhere – but every clause carries 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 3-param search tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, this description covers purpose, when to use it, when not to, sibling routing, parameter bounds, and the meaning of returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is defined as number/year/type/title word with a length constraint (1–2.000 characters), top_k is bounded (1–20), and sort options are enumerated with the default ('relevance', 'newest', 'oldest'). No parameter is left ambiguous.

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+resource ('Cari judul regulasi'), narrows scope to literal/as-is title matching, and explicitly disclaims semantic search and norm-content inference. This distinguishes it from siblings like cari_pasal_terkait and cari_peraturan_terkait without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('bila pengguna meminta keberadaan atau nama regulasi tertentu') with concrete examples (UU 30 Tahun 2009, PP 45 Tahun 2009), states when-not ('bukan pencarian semantik dan bukan dasar untuk menyimpulkan isi norma'), and routes correctly to baca_isi_pasal for Pasal lookups with the required regulation_id.

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