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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-corpus operation, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that results are article-level with JORT citations and that both French and Arabic text is searchable, but it says nothing about result ordering, relevance behavior, or how truncated/large result sets behave beyond the schema's limit cap.

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 purpose and return content are front-loaded in a single well-formed sentence. The only waste is that the French sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the English one; reasonable for a bilingual legal tool but it doubles length without adding new 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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and a non-trivial domain, the description covers the essentials: scope of the corpus, languages supported, and the shape of returned data (articles with JORT references). Missing only retrieval-behavior details (top-N semantics, ranking), which are minor for a straightforward search endpoint.

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 83%, so kind, lang, query, year_from, and year_to are already documented in structured fields, and limit is bounded by min/max. The description only loosely reinforces the query/lang semantics ('keywords in French or Arabic') without adding format, syntax, or matching behavior beyond the schema. 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 ('Search Tunisian law') plus the covered document types (codes, laws, organic laws, decree-laws) and what is returned ('matching articles with JORT references'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_article/get_text/latest_jort by being a keyword search, but it never explicitly names a sibling or draws the boundary with search_announcements.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'use this when you have keywords in French or Arabic about Tunisian legislation.' There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_announcements, get_article, or get_text, and no note on fallback behavior when results are empty.

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