dlytrm_rlt_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is established. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'Returns: Search results or error') but no details on pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication. This meets the baseline without going beyond.

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 well-organized with a purpose statement, use case, and parameter list. It is concise overall, though the opening bilingual phrase and the paraphrase 'searches the linkage' slightly repeat the headline concept without adding much new information.

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 no output schema, the description gives only a vague 'Returns: Search results or error.' It thoroughly covers purpose and parameters, and the annotations plus sibling-tool context provide additional scoping. The main gap is the exact shape of search results, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section thoroughly explains every schema parameter: defaults for query, display, page, response format, and OC override behavior. It even adds constraints like max=100 and 1-based page numbering, fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('searches the linkage') and resource (everyday terms to legal equivalents), making the direction unambiguously everyday-to-legal. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by highlighting this unique mapping.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'finding the correct legal terminology when starting from common language.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the contextual guidance is sufficient for basic tool selection.

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