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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search, but does not state whether results are paginated, how many clauses are returned, whether search is case-sensitive, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool's purpose and filters without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what can be searched but not how results behave, whether filters combine, or when to prefer this tool over sibling compliance and calculation tools. Additional behavioral context would raise the score.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the Part range 'A to XA' and a category list, which is mildly useful but largely mirrors the schema examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search and query South African National Building Regulations (SANS 10400) clauses.' It also names the two major filtering dimensions (Part and category), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as pre_check_building_plan or calculate_stair_compliance, so it falls short of a 5.

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 indicates what the tool searches but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like pre_check_building_plan or get_common_rejection_pitfalls. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or workflow hints. Usage is only implied by the search-oriented wording.

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