Search clauses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses ranking precedence, the Pro-only tag filter behavior, and the fallback of skipping rather than refusing. It does not cover output shape or authorization requirements, but the core non-obvious call behavior is surfaced.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant information (ranked scope, ranking priority, and free/Pro behavior) is front-loaded and each 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?

For a simple search tool, this is largely complete: it identifies the searchable resource, the ranking behavior, and the filter constraints. The main remaining gap is that the category parameter has no schema description and is only indirectly covered by the phrase 'categories', but this does not prevent a competent agent from invoking the tool 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?

The schema already describes query, tags, and jurisdiction, so the description adds limited parameter-level meaning. It does clarify category's role by mentioning categories as a search target, and it reinforces the tag-skipping behavior, but it does not substantially go 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?

States a specific verb and object: 'ranked search over clause titles, tags, categories and bodies'. The ranking detail further distinguishes it from a plain list (clause_list) and from other clause tools.

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 this is the right tool when ranked keyword search over clauses is needed, and it explains filter availability. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer clause_list or other clause tools instead, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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