Search the rulebook

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the description's added value is in disclosing that results are shallow (section numbers and titles only), which prevents an agent from assuming it can answer directly from search results. It omits result-count limits and ranking behavior, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 the core action, with the domain clarification and the output/next-step facts each earning their place. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned (section numbers and titles) and how to continue (read_rule). It could be stronger by noting whether results are limited or ranked, but an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (including the natural-language query example and the episode_id provenance) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit framing that the rulebook is case-scoped, which is marginal beyond what structured data provides.

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 professional rulebook for the case") and even disambiguates the domain with the parenthetical about the patent examination manual. It also clarifies the output form (section numbers and titles, not full text) and names the sibling read_rule as the follow-up, so an agent can tell it apart from search_library/read_publication.

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?

"Use it to find the legal test that applies" gives a clear usage condition, and "read one with read_rule" directs the agent to the correct next step instead of expecting full text here. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_library, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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