jo_rlt_lstrm_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only 'Returns: Search results or error', which is generic. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, specific output structure, or how the search behaves with different query patterns. No contradictions found.

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-structured with a title, a brief summary, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides useful information, with no redundancy or fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and a basic return note. It is mostly complete, though the return value description ('Search results or error') is minimal and could benefit from specifying what a typical result contains.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all 5 parameters with meaningful explanations: query, display, page, oc, and type. Although 'oc' is not fully expanded, the overall parameter documentation compensates well for the schema gaps.

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's function: searching linkage from law articles to legal terms, with a specific summary 'Article to legal term linkage'. It provides a concrete use case. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like lstrm_rlt_jo_search, which may have similar purposes.

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 includes a clear usage context: 'Useful for finding all technical terms in a given article.' This implies when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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