il_search_law_texts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful scope (published versions, consolidated texts) and relationship to il_get_law_documents, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the primary purpose, followed by a sentence explaining the complementarity with il_search_laws. No filler; each sentence carries distinct value.

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 description fully equips an agent to select and use the tool. It leverages annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, while adding crucial sibling distinctions and workflow relationships. No significant gaps remain.

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 100% with descriptions for both query and limit parameters. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's action and resource: 'Search published Israeli law versions (KNS_Law), including consolidated texts.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling il_search_laws by naming the distinct id spaces and registries.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus il_search_laws, noting that il_search_laws covers KNS_IsraelLaw (validity status, Basic Law flag) while this tool covers KNS_Law. It also mentions related tool il_get_law_documents for retrieving PDFs, giving clear workflow context.

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