search_legislation

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses FTS5 full-text search with BM25 ranking, supported operators, and return format (snippets, relevance scores, metadata). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, though implied.

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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with main purpose, then search details, results description, and usage alternative. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers query syntax, filtering, results, and alternatives. Lacks details on sorting or default behavior, but overall sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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 context beyond schema: explains law number format ("90/2018"), how to use document_id, and search syntax for query parameter. Compensates well.

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 searches Icelandic statutes and regulations by keyword. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_provision, which is for exact law number lookups.

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?

Includes an explicit 'When NOT to use' section naming get_provision as an alternative. Also details supported search syntax (boolean operators, phrase search, prefix matching), providing clear guidance on usage.

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