find_exact

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: case and diacritic insensitivity and the fact that each match is returned with surrounding text. Nothing contradicts the annotations; the only omission is any note on result limits or pagination.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, then when to use it, then what it returns and the follow-up call. The example phrases earn their space by showing the exact query shapes ranked search would miss.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return structure, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: matching semantics, targeting guidance, and the follow-up to get_article. There is no meaningful gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful meaning for the required parameter: the phrase is matched literally with case and diacritics ignored, which changes how an agent constructs the query. The optional 'act' scoping parameter is left entirely to the schema, which already documents it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Find every article that contains a phrase LITERALLY") plus the precise matching rule (case and diacritics ignored). It is clearly distinguishable from ranked search (search_law) because it declares literal matching rather than ranking.

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?

It says when to use it — numbers and fixed wording that ranked search cannot see — with concrete example phrases ('15%', 'art. 41 alin. (10)'). It also gives a next step ("pull the whole article with get_article"), though it never explicitly states when not to use it or names search_law as the alternative to choose instead.

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