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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the top_k default and the hit shape, but no rate limits, ranking behavior, or empty-result semantics beyond what annotations/schema give.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then a usage line, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and all three parameters are addressed. The main residual gap is the format/syntax of the law identifier and how multi-term keywords are combined, which matters for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably: law is defined as 法规名或集群标识 and linked to get_article's law param, keywords gets three concrete example queries, and top_k's default of 5 is restated. It still does not specify law identifier syntax or keyword tokenization (space-separated AND/OR?), leaving some ambiguity.

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 (检索), resource (条文), and scope (某一部法规内部), plus what is returned (条号 + 条文摘录). The scope phrase distinguishes it from the broader search_compliance sibling, so an agent can tell which search tool to reach for.

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 用途 line gives an explicit triggering condition: you already know which regulation, and you want to locate which article addresses a topic. It does not name the contrasting sibling (e.g. search_compliance for when the law is unknown), so the exclusion is only implied.

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