Search EASA rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the result shape ('ranked rules with reference, type, location and a matching snippet'), though it omits ranking behavior and the effect of the limit parameter.

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 short sentences: purpose, return content, then the routing hint, front-loaded with no wasted words. Every 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return fields, and the sibling routing covers the main follow-up action. Minor gaps remain: no mention of the default/limit on result count or how ranking works, which an agent might need to size queries correctly.

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 high (75%) and the schema itself documents book, content_type and gives concrete query examples, so parameter meaning largely comes from structured data. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (nothing on book scoping or the limit cap), so baseline 3 applies.

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 EASA Easy Access Rules') and enumerates the returned fields (reference, type, location, matching snippet). It also names the sibling get_easa_rule as the different tool for full text, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_easa_rule when full text is needed, which is clear usage context. It does not state when *not* to search (e.g. when a known exact reference should go straight to the getter, or how it relates to browse_easa_toc), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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