lnkLsOrdJo_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavior details beyond annotations: parameter formatting (zero-padded jo and jobr), recommended display size, response format options, and the return type ('Search results with linked ordinance articles or error'). This enriches understanding without contradicting 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 well-structured with a concise summary, a labeled Args section, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is detailed without being bloated.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers all parameter semantics, return behavior, and usage examples. It explains the search scope, formatting rules, and even includes a note about display size for exact matches. The only missing detail is the internal structure of results, which is not required given the output schema absence is mitigated by the description's clarity.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including defaults, formatting constraints, and examples. For instance, it specifies 'jo: Article number (4 digits, zero-padded)' with examples and recommends display=50-100. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 local ordinance articles that are linked to specific national law articles' using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from generic ordinance or law search tools by emphasizing the linkage aspect, as seen in sibling names like 'ordin_search' or 'law_search'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., finding ordinances implementing specific law provisions) and includes concrete examples like searching by knd and jo. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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