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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses corpus scale (近四万部法规、八十余万条条文), that results are snippets only rather than full articles, and that two-character queries yield incomplete results. It stops short of stating ranking, pagination, or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with the core purpose and return shape, then ★-marked rules that are easy to scan. Slightly redundant: the 3-character query rule appears in both the description and the q schema description, and the corpus-size sentence is informational rather than actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does, specifying law name, article number, and snippet. Combined with corpus size, query-length limits, and the required verification path via get_law_article, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 both q and limit are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add real value by warning that two-character terms return incomplete results, but it largely restates the schema's 'don't use a full sentence' guidance rather than introducing new semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('按「条文内容」检索法规库') and states exactly what comes back: which law, which article, plus a hit snippet. It also draws a hard line against sibling search_law (law-name queries) so an agent can route 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?

Explicit routing rule: use this tool when the user poses a concrete legal question ('竞业限制最多几年', '彩礼什么情况下能要回'), and only use search_law when asking which statute governs. It also prescribes a mandatory follow-up step (get_law_article) before formal citation and a query-length heuristic (3+ Chinese characters), covering when and how to invoke.

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