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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return semantics: semantic retrieval at Pasal level that can be used directly as evidence, with an explicit warning against reflexive re-reading via baca_isi_pasal. It omits finer behavioral traits such as error handling or behavior when candidates are weak, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded well, but the definition is padded: the point about not re-reading results via baca_isi_pasal is made across two separate paragraphs, and the final paragraph largely repeats the routing already established in the second. Tightening the baca_isi_pasal caveat into one sentence would lose nothing.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers the query semantics, the top_k bounds, the alternative tools, and the follow-up workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is a specific legal topic, mandatory, minimum 3 words, 1–2,000 characters; top_k is mandatory between 8 and 20. The query constraints are genuinely new (the schema declares no bounds for query), though top_k's 8–20 range merely restates the schema's min/max.

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 and resource: 'cari Pasal yang relevan secara semantik', and immediately scopes it to the case where the norm's address is unknown. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (cari_judul_peraturan, baca_isi_pasal), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (unknown nomor Pasal/regulation, searching by meaning such as syarat, kewajiban, sanksi), when-NOT-to-use with a worked example ('Pasal 34 UU Arbitrase' → cari_judul_peraturan then baca_isi_pasal), and the routing back to baca_isi_pasal for direct reads. Nothing is left to inference.

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