search_ohada_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the tool returns only short excerpts and references, and that results are 'candidate' provisions, which sets expectations about the nature of the output.

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 short, focused sentences. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, what it returns, and guidance on follow-up and efficiency. No waste.

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?

The description provides a clear workflow with get_article and mentions return characteristics, but it lacks documentation for the optional parameters. Since the output schema exists, return values need not be described in detail, but the parameter gap leaves the description moderately incomplete for a search tool with filtering options.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. While 'query' is implied by 'recherche textuelle', the optional parameters 'act_filter' and 'max_results' are not described at all, leaving the agent uncertain about how to set them, especially 'act_filter' which is domain-specific.

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 discovers candidate provisions by textual search in the OHADA corpus and returns short excerpts and references. It distinguishes itself from get_article, which is explicitly mentioned for reading full provisions.

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 instructs to use get_article after search to read full provisions, and advises against multiplying searches when the first references suffice. It does not explicitly state when not to use search (e.g., when a citation is already known), but the workflow is clear.

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