search_admin_rules

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains what the tool searches, mentions edge cases (zero results may indicate annual guidelines), and references a resource. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it or mention auth/rate limits. Still, it provides adequate context for a search tool.

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 informative and front-loads the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering purpose, context, alternatives, and follow-up. It is slightly verbose but well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should detail return values. It mentions results have an 'id' field and hints at the resource for admin rules, but lacks full parameter documentation and field details. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description must compensate. It only implicitly clarifies 'query' as the search keyword. The other parameters (page, display, scope) are not explained, leaving ambiguity about their function and valid values.

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 clearly states the tool searches administrative rules by keyword, identifies the source (National Law Information Center), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_guidelines. It uses specific verbs and provides examples, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for admin rules) and when to use an alternative (search_guidelines if zero results). Also instructs to pass the 'id' to get_admin_rule_text for full text, covering follow-up actions.

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