fedlex_search_treaties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds essential behavioral context: search scope limited to titles, and empty keyword returns latest treaties. No contradiction with 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?

Very concise, structured with use_case and important_notes tags, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, no superfluous text.

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?

Given rich annotations and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and key behavioral constraints. Could also mention result format or pagination, but for a search tool it is sufficiently complete.

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% per context, but schema actually documents keywords and language. Description adds value by explaining that omitting keywords lists latest treaties, but does not detail limit or language parameters further. Adequate but not complete compensation for low coverage.

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?

Clearly states it searches international state treaties (SR numbers starting with '0.'). Provides specific use cases (EU bilateral, double taxation, Council of Europe conventions) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fedlex_search_laws by focusing on treaties.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (search treaties) and includes important notes: search is title-only, without keywords returns latest treaties. Provides concrete examples and alternatives are implied by sibling context.

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