jp_search_by_keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds the key behavioral context of 'full-text search across all Japanese laws', which beyond the annotations specifies the scope and type of search.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('full-text search') and resource ('all Japanese laws'). No extraneous information; 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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated by context), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and scope. Minor missing details like result ordering or language of keywords are acceptable for a search tool with an output schema.

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 all three parameters (keyword, limit, offset) already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 performs a full-text search across all Japanese laws for a keyword, using a specific verb ('search') and resource ('all Japanese laws'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jp_get_article or jp_get_full_text which are retrieval operations, not searches.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jp_search_laws). While the name implies keyword search, there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool is better for other scenarios. The usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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