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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it discloses that results live in extra.fatiao, that each result is a provision plus parent-regulation metadata rather than full text, and that gateway credentials and charges apply. It does not cover rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the return_num parameter, but the cost and result-shape disclosures are significant.

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 operation and result-granularity caveat, followed by the retrieval alternative and cost/auth note. Every sentence is relevant, though the two gateway sentences could be tightened into one without losing 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?

For a four-parameter semantic search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: result location and shape, provision-level scope, the follow-up detail API, and gateway billing/authorization. It is close to complete, with only minor gaps around ordering, pagination, and explicit sibling selection.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by naming the filter dimensions: validity status, first-level legal authority, and effective date range. That is more specific than the schema's generic 'Filters for searching laws and regulations' nested-object description and helps the agent construct fatiao_filter correctly.

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: semantic search at the legal provision level using a natural-language query. It distinguishes the result granularity from full-regulation retrieval and points to a regulation detail API for follow-up. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as the case vector search or zq variant, so the differentiation is implied rather than direct.

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 one explicit routing rule: use the regulation detail API with the regulation ID when full regulation details are needed. It also scopes the tool to provision-level semantic retrieval. However, it does not say when to prefer this over keyword search or the sibling zq vector search, leaving the agent to infer those distinctions.

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