Return Finlex search URL for Finnish statute keyword search.
Finlex has no public JSON search API — returns the search URL for Claude to fetch.
Args:
query: Search terms in Finnish or English (e.g. 'kilpailukielto', 'non-compete').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a critical behavioral trait: it returns a URL rather than direct results because Finlex has no public JSON API. This is significant context beyond annotations, fully clarifying the tool's operational 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?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the rationale for the unusual return type, and the args list adds parameter guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 single parameter, existing output schema, and annotations, the description provides complete context: it explains the return type, the query parameter, and the external constraint (no API). Nothing important 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?
The schema provides only the parameter name 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter: 'Search terms in Finnish or English' and providing examples like 'kilpailukielto' and 'non-compete'. This gives clear guidance on what to input.
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's purpose: 'Return Finlex search URL for Finnish statute keyword search.' It specifies the resource (Finnish statutes via Finlex) and the action (search keyword), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_finnish_companies or get_finnish_statute.
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: Finlex has no public JSON search API, so the tool returns a search URL for Claude to fetch. This implies when to use the tool (searching Finlex statutes) and how to handle the output. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (obligations, documents, enforcement, Finnish statutes, CJEU cases) with clear parameter differences. Minor overlap exists between get_obligations and get_canonical_obligations, but descriptions explicitly differentiate them.
All tools consistently use verb_noun patterns: get_ for retrievals, search_ for queries, list_documents, and audit_taxonomy. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles are present.
At 26 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the large number of specialized search/get tools could be consolidated without losing functionality.
The API covers the full regulatory compliance workflow: company profile, obligations, deadlines, documents, enforcement, and multiple legal sources (EU, Finnish, CJEU). Some Finnish/KHO tools return URLs requiring web fetch rather than direct data, which is a minor but by-design gap.