search_local_acts

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, closed-world search, and the description adds useful context: the principal comes from operator config and dates should not be treated as evidence of legal validity. This helps the agent interpret results without contradicting the 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 definition is two sentences with the main scope front-loaded and no filler. Both clauses earn their place: the 'only' boundary defines the tool, and the date caveat prevents a likely misinterpretation.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits result format, parameter roles, and clear routing among the many sibling search tools, so the caveats alone are insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters like query, case_id, offset, and as_of_date. It only hints at date semantics and says nothing about the other three parameters, leaving a significant gap.

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 action ('Search') and a specific resource scope ('authorized imported texts only'), which also differentiates it from the sibling search tools. It does not explicitly define 'authorized imported texts' or name alternatives, so it falls just 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 word 'only' gives an explicit scope boundary, and the warning that 'dates do not imply valid local acts' provides practical guidance on interpreting results. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, so it is not fully explicit about when to choose another search.

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