lt_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the search is restricted to the act title (not full text). It does not add context like pagination or case sensitivity, but annotations lower the bar.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and 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?

For a simple search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does, and the schema covers parameters. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings, but this does not undermine overall completeness given the low complexity.

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 detailed descriptions for limit, contains, and doc_type. The description does not add parameter info beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Lithuanian acts') with a clear parameter ('whose title contains a substring'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings lt_get_act and lt_get_text, which presumably retrieve specific acts or texts.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to find acts by title substring. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling names. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.

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