search_legislation

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that query is an ILIKE substring match rather than ranked relevance, that state is fuzzy-matched, that in_force_only excludes repealed/spent acts by default, and that each result includes an authoritative source_url.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary sentence followed by tight bullet points. Every bullet adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, matching behavior, jurisdiction handling, default filtering, and result provenance, which is sufficient for most calls. It does not mention limit/pagination behavior or what happens when neither query nor act_id is supplied, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 descriptions are absent, so the description compensates for most parameters: query, state, act_id, and in_force_only all receive added semantics with examples. Only limit is left undocumented, which is a minor gap.

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 and resource: 'Search Indian legislation at the section level for one jurisdiction.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like get_act, search_regulations, and search_judgments.

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 gives clear context for using the tool, including what type of search it performs and that state values come from list_catalog. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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