dlytrm_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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the bridging function and a generic 'Search results or error' return note, which provides minimal behavioral context beyond 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 description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter list and a short returns line. Every sentence adds information about what the tool does or how to use its Arguments, with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple, but the absence of an output schema means the description's 'Search results or error' return statement is insufficiently descriptive. It also lacks usage differentiation from closely related sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to understand the result format or when to prefer this tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter, its default, and constraints (e.g., display max 100, page 1-based). The 'oc' parameter is vague ('Optional OC override') and 'ctx' is not in the schema, but overall the parameter explanations are useful and non-redundant.

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 identifies the tool as a search over everyday terms and their legal equivalents, using the specific verb 'Search' and a distinct resource scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search tools such as law_search or dlytrm_rlt_search, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 implies the tool is for translating common language into legal terminology but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling search tools such as law_search or dlytrm_rlt_search. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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