fgis_search_norms

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

With readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description adds value by disclosing that the target is a public API (suggesting no special auth needed) and that every source publication is returned as a card, revealing output granularity invisible in the schema. This context goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

Two short sentences totaling 14 words, with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. The return-value clause earns its place by clarifying output granularity.

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 simple read-only search with three self-explanatory parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the operation, query mechanism, and return shape, and the absence of an output schema makes the 'returns cards' note valuable. The notable gap is the lack of any routing guidance against the near-identical sibling fgis_search_document.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the required 'query' parameter accepts a code or text, but 'limit' and 'offset' receive no explanation beyond their self-evident names and defaults. The compensation is partial — the core parameter is clear, but pagination format and search-matching behavior are left 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('public norm API'), and a search mechanism ('by code/text'), and it states the return shape ('cards for all returned source publications'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fgis_search_document, so it stops short of the top score.

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 implies its usage context — searching public norms by code or text — but it never says when to choose this over fgis_search_document, fgis_read_norm, or other siblings, and it offers no exclusions. The selection logic must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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