Full-text search across all legislation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'slower' note adds performance context beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, result size limitations, or other side effects, which might be relevant given the 'slower' warning. It is not contradictory, but additional transparency could be given.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose and a key comparative attribute. There is no redundancy or fluff; every word contributes to clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations (read-only) and a straightforward schema, the description adequately covers the core context. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, and the 'slower and broader' hint provides performance context useful for agent decision-making.

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?

The description only explicitly covers the 'phrase' parameter ('for a phrase'), while 'limit' and 'match' are not addressed. The schema partially covers 'match' via its description, but 'limit' is left with no context beyond its name. The description adds some value by stating the search target, but it does not meaningfully enhance understanding of the other parameters, staying at a baseline level.

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 a specific action (searches) on a specific resource (body text of every act and instrument) and includes a distinct scope (all legislation). It differentiates from siblings like search_law and get_law_text by emphasizing the full-text, cross-document nature and relevance ranking.

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 contrasts with the sibling tool search_law by noting it is 'slower and broader', which tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the alternative. It does not provide exhaustive usage scenarios, but the comparative hint is actionable.

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