Advanced search (structured criteria)

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description adds behavior they cannot convey: filters are target-scoped, the meaning of date_from/date_to shifts by target, boolean `conditions` are evaluated in order and are 'not combinable with the keyword fields'. That incompatibility rule alone is high-value operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core mode-of-operation ('Pick a `target`, then either keyword groups or boolean conditions'), then proceeds to filter mapping and date semantics. Dense, run-on sentences, but for a 23-parameter tool nearly every clause carries necessary information.

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?

Covered: target semantics, filter-to-target mapping, target-dependent date meaning, the keyword-vs-boolean exclusivity, prerequisite catalogue lookups, and the article-number workaround. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. An agent has everything needed to construct a valid call.

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?

With only 57% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight: it enumerates which filters apply to each target (act_types/authority_ids, collectivity_ids, code_slugs/section_types, courts/court_orders/decision_types/case_number, consolidated_*) and redefines date_from/date_to per target. It does not clarify sort/page/page_size beyond the schema, leaving some gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (structured search) and immediately scopes it to 'precise requests: acts of a given type and authority over a period, decisions of a given court, articles of selected codes', which makes the tool's niche legible. It stops short of naming leginova_search as the simpler sibling alternative, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('Use it for precise requests...') and routes prerequisites to siblings: IDs must come from leginova_get_catalogue, and there is a stated negative case with an alternative ('no article-number field here: use leginova_get_code_article'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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