il_search_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the search is over law names (not texts) and that the query is in Hebrew. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but the schema covers the limit parameter. This adds meaningful scope information without redundancy.

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, short sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It uses precise terms ('full-text search', 'law names', 'Hebrew') with no filler or repetitive content. Every word adds 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?

For a simple search tool with strong annotations, an output schema, and a schema that documents both parameters, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the search scope and language. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance, but that was already penalized in the usage_guidelines dimension. The tool's simplicity and existing structured data make the description adequate.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented. The description's mention of 'Full-text search' and 'Hebrew' does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's 'free text in Hebrew' example. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('search'), a clear resource ('Israeli law names'), and a language scope ('Hebrew'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like il_search_law_texts by restricting to names, but it doesn't explicitly say 'for full-text content, use il_search_law_texts'. This is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer il_search_law_texts or il_search_case_law, and lacks any exclusions or context. The only usage hint is the parameter schema's example, but that's not in the description.

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