ls_rlt_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral trait of identifying associations based on shared subject matter or cross-references, which is useful but does not go deeper (e.g., pagination behavior, OC override implications). This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, a context sentence, and a parameter list. The Args block is somewhat repetitive of the schema but adds meaningful details like max display and OC override, so it earns its place. The Returns line is minimal but acceptable.

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 description is adequate for a simple read-only search but lacks details about result structure or error behavior, especially since there is no output schema. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the many similar sibling search tools, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding between them.

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: query default '*', display max 100 and default 20, page 1-based, OC override defaults to env var, type formats, and ctx injected automatically. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, making it highly useful for correct invocation.

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 it searches for laws related to a given query term and identifies associations based on shared subject matter or cross-references. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling related-law search tools, so it misses the distinction needed for a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools like aiRltLs_search, lstrm_rlt_search, or dlytrm_rlt_search. It only notes it is part of the knowledge base, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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