search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the query grammar (stemming, quoted phrases, uppercase boolean operators), the shape of returned data, and the narrowing options. It does not address permissions, result caps, or pagination, which are minor gaps for a read-only search tool.

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 dense clauses with zero filler: what it searches, how results are returned and where to go for full text, and how to narrow. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description helpfully summarizes them anyway. It covers query construction and primary filters but omits the semantics of the limit and include_repealed parameters, leaving a small hole for an otherwise complete definition.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains query syntax, source restriction, and gives a concrete chapter example ('750'), but the limit and include_repealed parameters are never mentioned, leaving two of five parameters semantically undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across stored provisions') and describes exactly what result type it produces (citations, catchlines, snippets). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_document by noting that full text requires that tool instead.

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?

Clearly signals the context: use this for searching, call get_document for full text, and it explains how to narrow results via source or MCL chapter. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when another sibling like get_cross_references is more appropriate), so it falls just short of the top band.

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