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 real value by disclosing the return payload shape (titles, short summaries, URLs) and the intended behaviour of citing results, which is not visible in any structured field since there is no output schema.

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, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the return/citation note. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the citation expectation, and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. Only the absence of any sibling-routing guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, with each of the three parameters documented including examples and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. query syntax, locale interaction) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Pactum articles explaining Uzbek law) with the topical scope enumerated (company law, trademarks, tax, labour, licensing). This clearly separates it from the sibling search_services, which targets a different resource type.

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 clause 'cite them when answering the user' implies the usage context (answering legal questions with sourced answers), which is genuine guidance. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent gets no explicit routing rule against search_services or get_service.

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