Search Philippine statutes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior: FTS5/BM25 lexical matching, confidence-threshold handling ('reports insufficient corpus coverage rather than guessing'), structured citations, and pagination semantics (hasMore/nextOffset). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose, then adding caveats and pagination/domain guidance. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return fields. It covers purpose, scope, low-confidence behavior, pagination, and domain narrowing, which is complete for this read-only search tool in its sibling context.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds actionable semantics beyond the schema: how to use offset ('check hasMore/nextOffset') and domain ('narrow results'), which helps an agent use these parameters correctly.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Lexical ... search') and resource ('statute corpus') with enumerated document types, making it clear this is the statutory search tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jurisprudence and search_issuance, even without naming them.

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 gives context: it searches statutes and is not for legal advice, and it advises using domain to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_statute over search_jurisprudence/search_issuance or when not to use it, leaving the alternative selection implied.

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