il_search_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent understands it's a safe, idempotent read. The description adds that searching is over 'law names' specifically, which is useful but doesn't elaborate on behavior like pagination or result format. With strong annotations, the description provides marginal additional transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence of six words that fully conveys the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the key elements (full-text search, Israeli law names, Hebrew language) are all front-loaded.

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, the description is mostly complete. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema and output schema cover parameters and return structure. The only missing context is usage guidelines (when to use this tool vs siblings), but the core functionality is well captured. For a simple search tool, this is above average completeness.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds a simple example for the query parameter ('e.g. a keyword from the law's title'), which provides a bit more context than the schema alone. However, since the schema already documents the parameters well, the description doesn't add significant new semantics.

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 performs 'full-text search over Israeli law names (Hebrew)', with a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like il_search_case_law which searches case law, and il_get_law/il_get_case which are retrieval 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use il_search_laws vs il_search_case_law, or mention any prerequisites. The description simply states functionality without usage context.

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