Search Australian legislation by name

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the tool returns title IDs and falls back to full-text matching. This provides practical operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential additional details about return values and fallback behavior.

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 straightforward search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return values, and matching behavior. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 schema already describes the query parameter with an example ('income tax rates'), covering 50% of parameters. The description reinforces the 'by title' semantics but does not add significant new meaning for the limit parameter, making the guidance adequate yet not exceptional.

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 'Finds Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments on the Federal Register of Legislation by title', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_full_text by noting it searches by title and falls back to full-text matching.

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 provides clear context, explaining that it returns title ids for other tools and falls back to full-text when name matching fails. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions to avoid using this tool, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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