search_legal_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior by stating it returns a list of matching terms with IDs, but it does not disclose any limitations, authentication needs, or side effects. For a simple search, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences, with the main action 'Search for legal terms' front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in depth. It covers the core action and return format. However, it omits any mention of read-only status or potential prerequisites, which would be useful but are not critical for a search 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'query' with zero description coverage. The description compensates minimally by implying that the query is the legal term to search for, but it provides no detail on matching behavior or expected format. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 for legal terms and specifies that it returns definitions. The resource "legal terms" distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law_articles and search_statutory_interpretations, which target different content types.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use this when you need to find or define legal terms. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings or any exclusions noted, so it stops at implied usage.

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