lookup_statute_of_limitationsCheck Iranian limitation periods (مرور زمان) — prosecution, execution, and filing deadlines — for a case category. Use when the user asks whether a claim is time-barred or how long they have to file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crime_grade | No | Optional تعزیری grade (1–8), criminal only. | |
| case_category | Yes | Case category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the lookup is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, how current the legal data is, or what the response format looks like. The description is too brief to convey these traits.
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 two sentences: one states the purpose and scope, the other gives usage context. Every word is functional, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the key meaning. Excellent conciseness.
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 lookup tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what it does and when to use it. It lacks details about return values or limitations, but these are not critical for a straightforward legal lookup, keeping it slightly above the minimum viable.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description adds only a vague reference to 'case category' but does not provide further semantics beyond what the schema already documents. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check Iranian limitation periods (مرور زمان) — prosecution, execution, and filing deadlines — for a case category.' It specifies the resource (limitation periods), the verb (check), and distinguishes it from related lookup tools like lookup_law_article or lookup_procedure by its focus on time limits.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the user asks whether a claim is time-barred or how long they have to file.' While it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear and practical, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific legal calculation, lookup, or search source. The calculate_* tools each cover a distinct statutory computation (e.g., delay penalty vs. diyeh vs. mahrieh), the lookup_* tools are for direct retrieval of known items, and the search_* tools are split by source type (law, case law, opinions, circulars). While lookup_annual_rate and search_circular both touch rates, their descriptions clearly separate direct database retrieval from full-text search, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: calculate_* for computations, lookup_* for direct retrieval, and search_* for full-text search. There are no camelCase or mixed-style names, making the set highly predictable.
Nineteen tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but the server covers a large legal domain with many distinct calculation types and research sources. Each tool earns its place given the breadth of Iranian law, though the number may feel a bit heavy.
The toolset covers statutory calculations (10), specific-article lookup and procedural lookups (5), and full-text search across laws, case law, advisory opinions, and circulars (4). This spans the essential needs of Iranian legal research—computing amounts, finding article text, checking deadlines/sentences/limitations, and finding authoritative interpretations—with no obvious dead ends.