Fedlex Connector

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

No annotations provided, but description implies read-only retrieval and emphasizes exact match, which is transparent. Does not cover error cases or output format, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose followed by usage guidance. Highly efficient.

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, description could mention return format, but the tool is simple. Covers purpose and usage well, slight gap on expected output.

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 baseline 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only rephrasing article parameter example. No additional meaning for other parameters.

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 retrieves a single article by exact article number, and distinguishes it from sibling tool get_law_text by specifying the exact use case.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (exact article number known) and when not to use (searching for provisions), and names the alternative tool get_law_text.

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

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

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or what happens with invalid RS numbers. It focuses on usage rather than behavior.

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?

Description is concise with two main sentences and a usage hint, but could be slightly more structured to separate behavior from usage.

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 text retrieval tool with no output schema, it covers when to use, parameter details, and pagination, though it does not specify the output format.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds value by explaining pagination (page parameter), giving examples for section, and noting language default.

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 retrieves official consolidated Swiss federal law text from Fedlex, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_article by advising preference unless exact article known.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'always start here', 'Prefer this over get_article unless you already know the exact article number', and mentions pagination for large acts.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read operation by saying 'List' and 'returns dates', but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is non-destructive. Basic behavior is disclosed.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without wasted words.

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?

Given the simple nature of listing dates and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could mention the output format but is sufficient for a straightforward list 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or format constraints for 'since'.

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 lists consolidation version dates for a Swiss federal act, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource (dates). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on version dates rather than full text or articles.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for listing version dates, implying it should be used when dates are needed versus text or search. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches titles only and returns only in-force acts. This is sufficient given the read-only nature of a search tool. It could be improved by mentioning any limits (e.g., pagination, result ordering) but is already transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states the domain and action, second sentence clarifies utility and limitations. No wasted words.

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?

Given there is no output schema and only two parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the scope (Swiss federal legislation, Fedlex), the purpose, and the constraints (titles only, in force). However, it does not specify the format of the results (e.g., list of RS numbers with titles), which would help an agent understand the return value.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about searching titles only and returning in-force acts, which is already implied by the schema descriptions. It does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches Swiss federal legislation titles in the Classified Compilation on Fedlex. It specifies the purpose: find the RS number of a law when you know its name but not its number. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it searches titles only, not article content, and returns only acts currently in force.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to find the RS number of a law when you know its name. It also explains what it does not do (searches titles only, not article content). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare to siblings (get_article, get_law_text, list_amendments), which would provide fuller guidance.

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