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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds one useful behavioral detail: in-force acts rank first. It does not disclose result format, pagination, or matching edge cases, earning a solid mid-range score.

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 sentence is compact, front-loaded, and informative, covering purpose, usage, and ranking behavior efficiently. The trailing standalone word 'hint.' is unexplained noise that slightly reduces clarity and costs the description a higher score.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the input semantics, the intended use case, and a relevant ranking behavior. Without an output schema, a little more detail about the result shape would be useful, but an agent can confidently call this tool as described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must document the query parameter, and it does: it explains that query accepts title keywords or official abbreviations and gives examples. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, so one of the two parameters remains underdocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('acts'), and clarifies that it searches by title keyword or official abbreviation, with concrete examples. This meaningfully distinguishes it from other fedlex tools by describing exactly what kind of lookup it performs.

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 an explicit 'use when you know the name but not the SR or ELI' condition, which helps an agent decide when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it is just short of full routing guidance.

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