search_legislation

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

Describes search mechanism (FTS5 with BM25 ranking), supported syntax, and output format. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and does well, though it omits rate limits or auth requirements.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, technical detail, syntax, output. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

Sufficient for a search tool: explains what is returned (snippets, scores, metadata) and all parameters are described. Missing pagination details but not critical.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by detailing query syntax (boolean operators, phrases, prefix) beyond the schema's 'FTS5 syntax' note.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches Danish statutes and regulations by keyword, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_case_law and search_eu_implementations.

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 for Danish statutory/regulatory text but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough given sibling names.

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