nl_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making safety and idempotency clear. The description adds the detail that results are acts 'in force on a date', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering). It does not contradict annotations.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and constraints. Every word is necessary, and no information is redundant. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low parameter count (2), full schema coverage, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently outlines the tool's behavior. It specifies the search target (title words) and temporal condition (in force on a date). It does not detail output format, but that is covered by the output schema. Minor missing context like result ordering or error cases, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reiterates that query is 'words in the act title' and on_date is 'optional YYYY-MM-DD defaults to today'. This does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 explicitly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Dutch consolidated acts', and the scope 'by words in the title, in force on a date'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like nl_case_search (cases) and nl_get_act (retrieve specific act).

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 for finding acts by title words with a date constraint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nl_get_act for a known act) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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