Search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond the annotation: this tool exists for compatibility with clients requiring the standard search/fetch pair, and it lacks filtering capabilities. This is meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the core function, then provides compatibility context, a routing preference, and a pairing instruction. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the existing readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool searches, what it returns, when to use the alternative, and how to consume results with `fetch`.

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 single parameter `query` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explicitly define query syntax or expected formatting. However, the description's statement of 'generic corpus search over US primary law' makes the query's purpose clear enough for a single simple string parameter, though it does not fully compensate for the absent schema description.

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'), an explicit resource ('US primary law'), and the output shape (`{id, title, url}`). It explicitly distinguishes itself from `search_us_statutes`, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting either schema.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to prefer `search_us_statutes` over this tool and why, and instructs pairing with `fetch` to read results. This is clear routing guidance with conditions and an alternative named.

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