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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the read-only search nature, the shape of results (list of provisions with text, number, parent regulation ID/name and metadata), and the notable operational fact that charging and authorization are governed by the caller's gateway credentials. It does not discuss pagination beyond the schema's top_k, which keeps it 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?

The core search behavior and its negative scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the return shape and gateway billing note following. Two sentences and a credentials line, with no filler; slightly long but each 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 12-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, return contents, a clear negative boundary, and the billing/auth model. Pagination behavior and result-ordering are not described, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all twelve parameters in detail, including allowed literal values and date formats. The description only restates the filter categories in prose, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('searches legal provision text') and adds a scope boundary that separates it from regulation-level tools: 'it does not return the full text of entire regulations.' This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling fg_search / ft_detail tools without opening a schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 requirement that keyword is mandatory and the note that full regulations are not returned imply when this tool is appropriate (provision-level lookup rather than document retrieval). However, there is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to yuandian_post_open_rh_ft_detail or yuandian_post_open_rh_fg_search, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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