ro_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral requirement of needing at least one search parameter, which is valuable. However, it lacks deeper context like pagination, ordering, or error behavior beyond what the schema already provides. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences—concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the constraint is clearly stated.

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 5-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and a presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the action, the resource, and the key usage constraint. The schema and annotations cover the remaining details, so no critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with rich details for each parameter (e.g., year's 'publication/in-force year, e.g. 2018'). The description adds the cross-parameter constraint that at least one of title/text/year/number must be provided, which is not otherwise specified. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Search Romanian legislation.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (Romanian legislation), and the constraint 'Provide at least one of title/text/year/number' distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch 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 provides clear context: it is for searching legislation and requires at least one of four search criteria. It does not explicitly compare with siblings ro_get_act and ro_get_text, but the constraint implies when it is applicable. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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