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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context by naming the announcement categories (company formation, changes, dissolution, merger), but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or behavior when no filters are supplied.

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 searchable axes are front-loaded in a single sentence, with the bilingual French rendering being an intentional accessibility choice rather than filler. The trade-off is that the same information is stated twice, so there is no net new content in the second half.

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 seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, an agent needs to know what results look like and how to narrow a broad query. The description covers the domain but not result structure, pagination, or fallback behavior for zero-result searches, which is a meaningful gap 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?

At 57% schema description coverage, the schema already documents query, company (fuzzy), and the date patterns. The description roughly mirrors those same four search axes without adding syntax, matching behavior, or precedence when multiple filters are provided, and it never mentions the 'kind' enum or the 'limit' cap as usable filters.

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 (search) and resource (Tunisian official JORT legal announcements) and enumerates the covered announcement types, so the domain is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_law, leaving the boundary between 'legal announcements' and 'laws' to be inferred from the resource name alone.

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 lists which fields can be searched but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as search_law or latest_jort, which are the obvious overlapping siblings. It also omits whether filters can be combined, which matters for a seven-parameter search tool.

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