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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the description's added value is the corpus boundary (curated major Taiwan laws, excluding court decisions) and the retrieval mechanism (Qdrant hybrid dense + bigram-sparse RRF). It omits result format and pagination behavior, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the corpus caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers corpus scope and matching behavior adequately; only the shape of returned results is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the annotations already convey the safety profile.

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% and the schema description already explains query syntax and the limit default, so the description merely restates that a concept, keyword, or article reference is acceptable. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) plus resource (Taiwan ROC law articles) and scope (laws only, not court decisions), which directly distinguishes it from sibling search_decisions and get_article_by_number. An agent can route without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by naming query modes (legal concept, keyword, article reference) and limiting the corpus, but never states when to prefer search_law_titles or get_article_by_number over this tool, nor when-not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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