search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds two behavioral traits: the as_of_date constraint for consolidated texts, and 'Failed sources remain explicit,' which informs the agent of partial failure handling. This goes beyond annotations but only slightly.

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 extremely brief – three short phrases – which is efficient, but it reads like a fragment rather than a structured explanation. There is no clear organization, and the most critical information (what the tool returns) is absent. It is concise but not well-structured for agent consumption.

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 five parameters, one enum, no output schema, and a domain where search semantics matter (federated, official sources), this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the query behavior, pagination via cursor, legal_order filtering, source_types selection, or what the returned results look like. An agent would be guessing at most of the contract.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only touches on as_of_date (and only partially – it doesn't say how the date is formatted or what happens without it). Query, cursor, legal_order, and source_types remain entirely unexplained, so the description fails to carry the load.

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 says 'Federated official search' but does not specify what is being searched (legal texts? case law? regulations?) or how it differs from siblings like search_case_law or search_local_acts. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not help an agent pick this over alternatives.

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 provides a single conditional guideline: 'Consolidated texts require as_of_date.' This tells the agent when to supply a parameter, but gives no context about when to prefer this federated search over the more specific sibling search tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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