cl_search_norms

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey safety and idempotency. However, the description does not add any behavioral details beyond 'full-text search', such as pagination, rate limits, or search scope. Minimal added value.

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 a single sentence of five words, with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'search', making the purpose immediately clear. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, good annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly specifies the resource (Chilean legislation titles) and operation (full-text search). Minor missing details like search behavior for special characters or case sensitivity are not critical for a basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions. The tool description does not provide any additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'Chilean legislation titles', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cl_get_norm, which presumably retrieves a specific norm.

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 implicitly guides usage: use this tool for full-text search over titles, not for retrieving specific norms. The sibling tool cl_get_norm provides an alternative, and the context signals give enough information to infer when to use each.

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