lt_search_in_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key scoping trait (results are provisions of a single act, matched on wording) but says nothing about the date-versioned view, result limits/pagination, or what a match looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter tool, but there is no structural waste.

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?

An output schema exists and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description need not explain returns. What is missing is the relationship to the dense sibling set (lt_search, lt_get_provisions, lt_get_text) and the date-versioning behavior that materially affects results.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, tar_kodas, date, limit, and ignore_diacritics are all documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the general notion of matching a phrase, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: full-text phrase search restricted to the provisions of a single act (identified by tar_kodas). This is meaningfully narrower than a general search, so an agent can tell it is provision-level and act-scoped, though it never names the sibling tools it differs from.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one act' signals this is the tool for searching inside a known act, in contrast to the corpus-wide lt_search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of preferring lt_search for multi-act queries, and no guidance on choosing between this and lt_get_provisions.

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