search_by_date_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint (max 50 results per query), which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination or return format, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. Purpose is front-loaded, options and limits are stated concisely. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description mentions max results and date range filtering, which is adequate. It does not explain ordering or error handling, but for a search tool with good annotations, this is nearly complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra value: it expands the type abbreviations (e.g., REG=rozporzadzenie) and clarifies that omitting type covers all. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema descriptions are already complete.

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 finds EU legal acts within a date range, with optional type filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'search_by_celex' (by CELEX number) and 'search_cjeu' (Court of Justice documents).

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 gives a clear use case (reviewing acts from a specific legislative period) and mentions optional filters and a maximum result limit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare with siblings.

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