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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the database's scale and composition (~40,000 documents spanning laws, administrative regulations, judicial interpretations, local regulations, departmental rules) and the exact fields returned, which is meaningful context for a lookup. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free or how it behaves when nothing matches, so it falls short of fully covering the no-annotation burden.

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 scope, then the usage trigger marked with ★, then the next step; every clause carries information. The parenthetical list of regulation types is slightly dense but justified by the four-tier database it describes.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so the agent knows what a hit looks like. Combined with the database scope, the trigger conditions, and the hand-off to get_law_article, nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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 q, cat, and limit are already fully documented in the schema, and the description's guidance about user-spoken law names largely restates it. The inline examples (「民法典」「劳动合同法」) add a little value as sample queries but do not introduce new syntax, format, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource (locate which statute in the regulation database) and enumerates exactly what is returned: full name, abbreviation, category, validity status, publication/effective dates, and article count. It also names the sibling get_law_article as the follow-up for article text, so the agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

The ★ line gives an explicit trigger condition (user mentions a concrete statute name such as 民法典/劳动合同法/人身损害赔偿司法解释, or asks 'which law provides this') and names the alternative (get_law_article) plus the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and where-to-go-next are spelled out.

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