eqanun_axtar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about matching semantics (substring vs whole word, case/diacritics), the result shape, or whether results are paginated. It implies a read-only lookup but never states it.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. However, the Azerbaijani line is a literal translation that repeats the same information without adding anything for an English-reading agent, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at least state what comes back (matching articles/snippets) and how matching works. Neither is present, leaving the agent guessing about results and the scope parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for two required parameters. The description echoes 'soz' (word) as 'a word' but never explains framework_id — the parameter that identifies which act to search — nor how the word is matched against article text.

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 states a specific verb and resource — finding articles of an act that contain a word — which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from search-like siblings such as president_axtar or how it differs from the structural siblings eqanun_akt/eqanun_madde/eqanun_bend.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The only hint is the implied 'search inside one act's articles' scope, which the agent must infer from the phrasing.

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