search_in_act

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions returning 'all hits with context and section information' but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or performance. The case-insensitivity is noted in the parameter schema, not the description.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. Examples are provided in a bullet list, which is helpful but slightly verbose. Every sentence is useful.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the prerequisite and basic behavior. It provides examples and mentions the return of 'all hits with context and section information'. Could be more detailed but is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds examples and reiterates the prerequisite for 'eli', but does not significantly enhance meaning 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 verb 'search' and the resource 'content of loaded legal act'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_legal_acts' which search across acts, and specifies the prerequisite of loading via 'get_act_details'.

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 states the prerequisite: the act must be loaded using 'get_act_details(eli=..., load_content=True)'. This tells when to use the tool and implies when not to. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'search_legal_acts'.

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