Reference lists for advanced search

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral hint – that the unfiltered result can be long, hence the `contains`/`section` filters – but says nothing about result size limits, pagination, or whether identifiers are returned with labels.

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?

Two tightly-packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the filtering advice. Every clause earns its place, though the phrase "keep the answer short" is slightly informal where a concrete size hint would be more useful.

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 two-optional-param reference-lookup tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description tells the agent what the payload is (search identifiers) and how to constrain it. It does not describe the shape of a returned entry (identifier plus label), which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 only 50%: `contains` is documented in-schema (case-insensitive label filter) while `section` is a bare enum. The description restates the section categories, which maps loosely to the enum values (though it omits `all` and `court_orders`), adding minimal meaning beyond what the enum already conveys. Baseline 3 for partial coverage 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 makes clear this returns the vocabulary/identifiers that leginova_advanced_search accepts, and names the sibling it supports, which distinguishes it from list/browse siblings. It never states an explicit verb ("Lists" or "Returns"), leaving the action implicit, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is clearly implied: fetch these identifiers to feed leginova_advanced_search, and narrow with `section`/`contains` when the full list is too long. There is no explicit when-not or a stated alternative tool for the same need, so it stops short of 5.

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