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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: results are compact, ids are opaque, and an id should be passed unchanged to a fetch operation for full text and provenance. This provides a clear next-step workflow.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the result-handling behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter search tool with a rich output schema and safety-relevant annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: search, receive compact results, and follow an opaque id to fetch full provision details. Nothing critical 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 100%, and the single 'query' parameter is adequately described as a natural-language or keyword search. The description adds no additional query-format guidance, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Search') and a specific resource ('Lexiara's bounded EU and UK legislation corpus'), and it explains the nature of results. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_legislation', so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching a bounded EU and UK corpus and wanting compact, citable results. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the boundary is reasonably clear.

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