search_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns nodes with id, title, pillar, and BLUF, and that every node traces to a primary legal source. However, it does not describe behavior such as result ordering, handling of no results, or whether search is fuzzy/exact. These gaps leave some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and return fields, the second provides usage guidance and examples. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence contributes meaningfully. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: functionality, return information, usage context, and examples. It lacks details on pagination or result limits (though limit param is documented), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by showing example queries ('GDPR breach notification 72 hours') and hinting at pillar usage via 'list_pillars'. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Keyword search across the Bidda registry of source-verified compliance obligations', clearly stating the verb ('search') and the resource (registry of obligations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browse_topics or consult_node by being a general search tool, and the examples and usage guidance reinforce its unique purpose.

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 includes 'Use to find the rule that governs a topic, law, standard, or MITRE technique' and provides concrete examples. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the clear search purpose imply the appropriate use cases. It would benefit from mentioning when to use browse_topics or consult_node instead.

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