search_by_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors beyond the bare operation: it matches titles only, excludes article content, and filters to acts currently in force. It does not describe result format or pagination, but for a simple search tool the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and domain, then adds the key differentiator and result filtering. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main facts an agent needs: what is searched, why to use it, what is excluded, and the in-force filter. It could mention result fields or language behavior in more detail, but the tool is simple and the description is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already explains both query and language parameters, including an example and the default language. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Swiss federal legislation titles in the Classified Compilation (RS/SR) on Fedlex'), and a clear intended outcome ('find the RS number of a law'). It also distinguishes itself from content search by saying it searches titles only, which differentiates it from siblings like get_article.

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 says when to use it: when you know a law's name but not its RS number. It also states what it does not do ('Searches titles only, not article content') and that it returns only in-force acts, which are useful exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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