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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns the database's original regulation text/details (including article content) and that the result is traceable, which clarifies output nature and read-only intent via 获取/get. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple lookup this is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter details and a note. It is generally efficient, though the explicit parameter list (id 必填, 字符串) duplicates what the schema already states, costing a bit of space.

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 single-parameter detail fetch with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, how to get the ID, and how it differs from AI interpretation. No critical information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter, its source from lawbotter_regulations_search results, its type, and required status. The description repeats this same information (必填, 字符串, source) without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (单部法规的详细信息/single regulation details) and further clarifies it includes article content. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming lawbotter_regulations_search for ID lookup and lawbotter_law_query for AI interpretation, so an agent can identify its role without opening any schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required ID (via lawbotter_regulations_search) and when to prefer an alternative: if AI interpretation is needed, use lawbotter_law_query. This gives a clear routing rule and an alternative tool, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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