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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: natural-language synonym matching ('murder finds qatl-i-amd, s.302 PPC') and the fact that section text plus citation is returned.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then scope then examples; every clause carries information. The act enumeration and example list are dense but justified for a multi-corpus legal search, though slightly long.

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 needn't explain returns, yet briefly notes section text with citation. Coverage of corpus, query semantics and scoping is sufficient for correct invocation; only explicit sibling routing 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 67% (limit is undocumented in the schema). The description compensates for the important parameter by explaining that query accepts everyday words, topics, or section references, and that act scopes the search to one statute, adding semantic detail the schema alone does not convey.

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+resource ('Find the sections of Pakistani laws relevant to a question') and enumerates the exact corpus covered (PPC, CrPC, CPC, Constitution, etc.), so an agent knows precisely what this returns versus a general web search.

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?

Provides concrete trigger examples ('punishment for snatching a motorcycle', 'bail in a non-bailable offence') that make the intended use unambiguous, and clarifies it handles everyday phrasing. It stops short of naming when to prefer get_statute_section (citation lookup) or search_judgments (case law) instead.

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