oa_law_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying that only metadata is returned (no full text), the license field is always set with 'unknown' for missing machine-readable licenses, and language filtering works only when explicitly set. No contradictions 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?

The description is well-structured with three clear paragraphs: purpose/sources, behavioral notes, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, every sentence adds necessary context for an agent.

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 the presence of a comprehensive input schema and annotations, the description covers the essential contextual aspects: purpose, source list, return type (metadata only), license behavior, and parameter overview. The return value description is brief, but an output schema exists, so no further detail is needed.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The main description only lists the parameter names without additional context. Since the schema covers parameter semantics well, the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema 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?

The description clearly states it searches freely accessible Swiss legal scholarly articles, specifying four specific sources. The verb 'Durchsucht' and resource 'frei zugängliche schweizerische rechtswissenschaftliche Beiträge' are precise. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the domain is so specific that it implicitly stands apart from generic search tools.

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 implies usage for Swiss open-access legal literature but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_preprints' or 'swisscovery_search'. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or references to sibling tools.

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