search_legislation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the authoritative portals and query modes, but says nothing about result ordering, return format, rate limits, or permissions; the search nature implies read-only behavior but does not state it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The main purpose, query modes, and source filtering are all packed efficiently into one line.

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 covers purpose, query modes, and authoritative sources, which is a reasonable minimum for a search tool. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about what a result contains and how results are ranked or limited.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the query and source-filter semantics but adds little beyond what the schema examples and enum already provide.

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 ('Поиск') and resource ('статей, кодексов и законов РФ'), plus supported query modes and source filtering. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_norm_text, so it falls 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?

The description implies when to use the tool by mentioning semantic queries, article-number queries, and authoritative-portal filtering. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like get_norm_text or check_norm_status.

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