find_related_laws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions the search action and relation types, omitting any information about return format, pagination, read-only nature, or error conditions. This is insufficient without structured metadata.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Encuentra') and efficiently adds key detail in parentheses. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (2 parameters), but the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify the expected return value. It gives the purpose but not the result structure or any qualifiers, which is adequate for a basic tool but not fully complete.

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 input schema already provides descriptive comments for both parameters: law_id (with pattern) and relation_type (with enum values). The schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Encuentra' (finds) and clearly specifies the resource 'leyes relacionadas' while adding a parenthetical that narrows the meaning to normative relations (modify, repeal, or modified by). This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'list_related_laws' by focusing on specific legal relationships rather than a generic list.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_related_laws'. It only states what the tool does without offering contextual cues, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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