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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description goes further: it discloses the retrieval backend (Qdrant dense + bigram-sparse with RRF fusion), the curated corpus limitation, and the return shape including that historical versions are flagged. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before usage routing and return format. Every sentence carries distinct information; no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return contract (law name, article number, relevance, text, historical marking). Combined with corpus scope and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already carries query examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful conceptual typology of query forms (concept vs. keyword vs. article reference) that helps an agent choose phrasing, but it adds nothing about the limit parameter.

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), resource (Taiwan/ROC law articles), and the query modalities supported (legal concept, keyword, article reference). It explicitly names the corpus boundary (laws only, not court decisions), which separates it from search_decisions.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you don't yet know which article applies') and routes to three named alternatives with their own conditions: get_article_by_number for known citations, search_law_titles for name resolution, search_decisions for rulings. Nothing is left to inference.

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