search_law

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context on top: multilingual query tolerance (Romanian or Hungarian), diacritic insensitivity, and the shape of each hit (article text plus act and chapter, presented for citation).

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: corpus scope, selection condition, language/encoding tolerance plus result shape. Front-loaded, no filler, and the language note is placed where it will be read before the agent types a query.

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 four annotations, a fully documented 3-parameter schema, and a present output schema, the description only needs to supply corpus scope, retrieval semantics and language handling — and it does all three. Nothing an agent needs in order to issue a correct query is missing.

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; the description earns above baseline by adding meaning to the query parameter — it accepts a question or key terms, in Romanian or Hungarian, with optional diacritics. The act filter and limit cap are left entirely to their schema descriptions, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 (search) and a precisely scoped resource (the Romanian surveying-law corpus, enumerated as cadastre, land registry, construction permits, land fund) and says what comes back (matching articles verbatim). It does not name the siblings it is meant to be distinguished from (find_exact, get_article, outline, list_acts), so the boundary is inferable but not declared.

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 this for a question about what the law requires" gives a clear positive trigger, and the corpus enumeration implicitly scopes out non-surveying-law questions. However, no alternatives are named and no exclusions are given, so an agent cannot tell from this text when find_exact or get_article would be the better call.

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