Search laws and regulations

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results contain no snippets, and approval-date sorting has ties that can duplicate or drop rows during deep paging. It also names the returned fields (total, pages, items) which annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with what is searched and what is returned, then two non-obvious caveats. No filler or restated field lists that the schema already provides.

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 17-parameter, annotation-rich search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, that only titles are matched unless in_text is used, the returned envelope, and pagination caveats. Minor gap: it does not clarify how the many id filters combine (AND vs OR) beyond the approver_id schema note.

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 94%, so the schema documents nearly all 17 parameters including query, match modes, status, and the id-based filters. The description adds no format or interaction detail beyond that baseline – its only parameter-adjacent contribution is the advice to narrow filters rather than page deeply.

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: search the Iranian law/regulation database (qavanin.ir) and list matching titles. The 'id for the other tools' phrasing hints at how it relates to siblings like qv_law and qv_amendments, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule – when deep paging on date sort may repeat or skip rows, narrow the filters instead of paging deeper – but offers no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance relative to qv_law or qv_lookup, and no prerequisites. Usage is largely implied by the purpose statement.

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