pk_search_laws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. Description adds behavioral context: searches 967 statutes, uses title-weighted ranking. This goes beyond annotations by revealing ranking logic, though doesn't detail output format or pagination.

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?

Single sentence (10 words) with no waste. Front-loaded with key purpose: 'Keyword search over Pakistan's 967 federal statutes'.

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?

With output schema present, description needn't detail return values. Mentions statute count and ranking method – adequate for search tool, but could add brief guidance on query syntax or ranking implications.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Tool description reinforces query as free-text keywords and adds ranking context, exceeding baseline value.

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?

Description states 'Keyword search over Pakistan's 967 federal statutes (title-weighted ranking)' – specific verb (keyword search), resource (Pakistan's federal statutes), and distinguishing feature (title-weighted ranking). Clearly differentiates from siblings like pk_case_search and pk_get_law.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. Sibling tool names provide contextual hints (e.g., pk_get_law for direct access, pk_case_search for cases), but description does not directly guide selection.

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