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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns matching articles/paragraphs with excerpts, which is useful context beyond the safety profile. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but for a search tool with idempotent read behavior, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the core functionality (search across all statutes) and then elaborates. Every sentence adds value: the list of statutes, accepted inputs, and return type. Slightly dense but not verbose. Could be broken into bullets for readability, but still efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (26 statutes, two search modes) and that there's an output schema (which likely explains return structure), the description covers the key aspects: scope, input types, and outputs. It also lists the legal areas covered. It doesn't explain edge cases like ambiguous queries or ranking, but the output schema presumably covers return format. Adequate completeness for a search tool.

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%: both 'query' and optional 'law' parameters are described in the schema. The description adds examples of query formats ("356a", "§312k", "Art. 42", "Cookie") and clarifies the scope of values for 'law', which adds some value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide detailed syntax or format rules beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches across 26 German/EU statutes and lists them explicitly, distinguishing it from siblings like list-laws (which likely only lists laws) and get-article (which likely fetches a specific article). It specifies both direct paragraph reference lookup and free-text keyword search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: for searching legal texts across statutes, with either paragraph references or keywords. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it (e.g., when you know the specific law and article, get-article might be more appropriate). Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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