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 well: it discloses the response shape (groups, semantic_hits capped at 10 preview articles, semantic_hit_pasals with all unique candidates), warns that IDs are ephemeral in the gateway registry and may need re-search, and notes that higher top_k increases time and response size. It stops short of stating read-only/safety characteristics, but the retrieval nature is obvious.

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?

It is front-loaded with the recommended-entry-point framing and organized into clear blocks, but it is long and repetitive — the baca_isi_pasal/baca_isi_pasal_batch routing and the 'main path' claim are restated, and the do-not-read-all warning overlaps with the selection guidance. Several sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still clarifies the meaning of its key fields (semantic_hits as a capped preview vs semantic_hit_pasals as the full candidate set), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would hit. Combined with the routing, the ephemeral-ID warning, and parameter bounds, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: query requires at least 3 words (1–2000 chars) and top_k is bounded 20–200 with default 40, a recommended 100, and an explicit trade-off between coverage and latency/payload size. Only minor syntax guidance (e.g. query format) is missing.

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 states a specific verb+resource: finding relevant regulations plus candidate Pasal for stepwise legal research, and frames itself as the recommended starting point. It clearly separates itself from the downstream read tools (baca_isi_pasal, baca_isi_pasal_batch) by routing to them. However it never distinguishes itself from the other search siblings (cari_judul_peraturan, cari_pasal_terkait), leaving that boundary implicit.

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?

Explicit when-to-use cases are given (understanding a regulatory umbrella, mapping legal landscape, comparing regulations, finding norms to read further), and it names the alternatives and the routing condition: pick Pasal from semantic_hit_pasals then use baca_isi_pasal for one norm or baca_isi_pasal_batch for several. It also gives an exclusion — do not auto-read all candidate Pasal.

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