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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: automatic fallback to local ordinances and administrative rules on zero hits, automatic abbreviation conversion, display of renamed and upcoming-amendment laws, and guidance for repealed rules including successor provisions. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before relying on results.

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 text is front-loaded with the tool purpose and then lists concrete behavioral features. It is dense and slightly overpacked into a single paragraph, but each clause contributes operational information rather than filler.

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, yet the description states the key return values (lawId, mst) and covers fallback, abbreviation conversion, amendment notation, and repealed-law guidance. For a search/discovery tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the query parameter by explaining that abbreviations are auto-converted and by giving example queries including ordinance and administrative-rule names. It does not add detail about the display parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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: keyword search of law names, ordinance names, and administrative rule names, returning lawId and mst. It clearly distinguishes this discovery step from retrieval siblings such as get_law_text and get_annexes by framing itself as identifier acquisition before lookup.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use this before retrieving laws, ordinances, or administrative rules in order to secure identifiers. It also explains fallback behavior when there are zero results, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search tools such as search_decisions.

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