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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the authoritative source, the returned fields, the separation of promulgation and effective dates, and the intended use of returned ids with cn_law_detail/cn_law_article_text. No behavior contradicts the annotations.

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 the core action and scope, then adds usage guidance, source, return fields, and downstream tool context without filler. Despite its density, every clause carries useful information.

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, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields and explaining how ids connect to detail/article tools. For a search tool with fully documented parameters, it gives the agent enough context to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces title/keyword searching but does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for exact, limit, query, and category.

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: it searches mainland China's national laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, and judicial interpretations by title or keyword. It also names downstream tools for the returned ids, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling cn_search_admin_regulations, which appears to overlap in scope.

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 says to prefer this over web search for Chinese-law queries, citation lookups, and finding official statute record ids. Those usage conditions are concrete and actionable, and the alternative of web search is named directly.

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