search_legislation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns an empty array (not an error) when no results match, and notes the FTS5 BM25 ranking implementation. It also warns that higher limit values consume more tokens. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: starts with the core purpose, then data source, return format, parameter usage, edge-case behavior, and alternative tool. Each sentence earns its place and no content is redundant with the 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (matching provisions, article text, title, BWB-ID). It also covers the empty-array edge case and provides guidance on all key parameters. For a search tool of this complexity, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it provides example query terms, explains multi-word AND/OR fallback logic, and gives a concrete document_id example (BWBR0005289). This significantly helps the agent formulate correct queries beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Dutch statutes and regulations by keyword using full-text search' and specifies the return content (provisions with article text, statute title, BWB-ID). It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_provision by advising to use that when the exact BWB-ID and article number are known.

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 explicitly suggests using this tool for keyword searches and directs users to get_provision as an alternative when the exact ID is known. It also explains how to narrow results with document_id and query historical versions with as_of_date, providing clear context for when to use these parameters.

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